Step 3/~7 in upstreaming LeanSAT.
A few thoughts:
- Why is this not in `Std.Sat`? LeanSAT's bitblaster operates on a
limited internal language. For example it has no idea that signed
comparision operators even exist. This is because it relies on a
normalization pass before being given the goal. For this reason I would
not classify the bitblaster as an API that we should publicly advertise
at this abstraction level
- Sometimes I slightly rebuild parts of the LawfulOperator
infrastructure for operators that work non-tail-recursively. This is
because they do not return an `Entrypoint` but instead an
`ExtendingEntrypoint` in order to even be defined in the first place
(casting Ref's and all that). Given the fact that this barely happens
and I never actually commit to rebuilding the full API I'm hoping that
this is indeed a fine decision?
- The single explicit `decreasing_by` that has a simp only which
*almost* looks like `simp_wf` is missing a singular lemma from `simp_wf`
because it doesn't terminate otherwise.
- I am not using functional induction because it basically always fails
at some generalization step, that is also the reason that there is lots
of explicit `generalize` and manually recursive proofs.
---------
Co-authored-by: Markus Himmel <markus@lean-fro.org>
Co-authored-by: Tobias Grosser <tobias@grosser.es>
Step 1 out of approximately 7 to upstream LeanSAT.
---------
Co-authored-by: Tobias Grosser <tobias@grosser.es>
Co-authored-by: Markus Himmel <markus@lean-fro.org>
#4917 will expose users of the `Lean` API to the renaming of the hash
map query methods. This PR aims to make the transition easier by adding
deprecated functions with the old names.
The original idea was to use `bif` in computation contexts and `if` in
propositional contexts, but this turned out to be really inconvenient in
practice.
The name `remove` was chosen because it is more popular in mainstream
programming languages, but being consistent with other Lean container
types (including `Lean.HashMap` and `Batteries.HashMap`) is more
important, so let's change the name while we still can.
### Preliminary PRs:
- [x] #4597
- [x] #4599
- [x] #4600
- [x] #4602
- [x] #4603
- [x] #4604
- [x] #4605
- [x] #4607
- [x] #4627
- [x] #4629
### Quick overview over API/naming changes compared to `Lean.HashMap`
and `Batteries.HashMap`:
#### Lean
* `find?` -> `get?`/`getElem?`
* `find!` -> `get!`/`gtetElem!`
* `findD` -> `getD`
* `findEntry?` -> not implemented for now
* `insert'` -> `containsThenInsert` (order reversed in result)
* `insertIfNew` -> `getThenInsertIfNew?` (order reversed in result)
* `numBuckets` -> `Internal.numBuckets`
* `ofListWith` -> not implemented for now
* `Array.groupByKey` -> not implemented for now
* `merge` -> not implemented for now, but you can use `insertMany`
#### Batteries
* `modify` -> not implemented for now
* `mergeWith` -> not implemented for now
* `mergeWithM` -> not implemented for now
