Before, `pp.instantiateMVars` generally had no effect because most call
sites for the pretty printer instantiated metavariables first, but now
this functionality is entrusted upon the `pp.instantiateMVars` option.
This also has an effect in hovers, where metavariables can be unfolded
one assignment at a time. However, the goal state still sees all
metavariables instantiated due to the fact that the algorithm relies on
expression equality post-instantiation (see
`Lean.Widget.goalToInteractive`).
Closes#4406
Closes#2736
See comment at `ExprDefEq.lean` for explanation.
Side effects:
- Improved error messages in two tests.
- Had to improve `getSuccesses` procedure at `App.lean`. It now
discards candidates that contain postponed elaboration problems.
If it is too disruptive for Mathlib, we should try to discard the
ones that have postponed metavariables.
This implements the `termination_by structural` syntax proposed in
#3909.
I went with `termination_by structural` over, say,
`termination_by (config := {method := .structural})` mainly because it
was
easier to get going (otherwise I’d have to look into how to define
recursive
parsers, as `Parser.config` depends on `term` and `termination_by` is
part of
term. But also because I find it more ergonomic and aesthetic as a user.
But syntax can still change.
The `termination_by?` syntax will no longer force well-founded
recursion,
and instead the inferred `termination_by structurally` annotation will
be shown
if structural termination is possible.
While I was it, this fixes#4546 the easy way (log errors about but
otherwise
ignore incomplete `termination_by` sets for mutual recursion). Maybe we
get
multiple replacements (#4551), but even then this this good behavior.
Involves a bit of shuffling around `TerimationHints` (now validated for
a
clique already by `PreDefinition.main`) and `TerminationArguments` (now
lifted
out of the `WF` namespace, and a bit simplified).
Fixes#3909
---------
Co-authored-by: Richard Kiss <him@richardkiss.com>
using the order as it comes out of the `HashMap` led to annying test
suite output variations. Moreover, sorting by the canonical order leads
to messages that are probably easier to digest as a user.
This example, reported from LNSym, started failing when we changed the
definition of `Fin.sub` in
https://github.com/leanprover/lean4/pull/4421.
When we use the new definition, `omega` produces a proof term that the
kernel is very slow on.
To work around this for now, I've removed `BitVec.toNat_sub` from the
`bv_toNat` simp set,
and replaced it with `BitVec.toNat_sub'` which uses the old definition
for subtraction.
This is only a workaround, and I would like to understand why the term
chokes the kernel.
```
example
(n : Nat)
(addr2 addr1 : BitVec 64)
(h0 : n ≤ 18446744073709551616)
(h1 : addr2 + 18446744073709551615#64 - addr1 ≤ BitVec.ofNat 64 (n - 1))
(h2 : addr2 - addr1 ≤ addr2 + 18446744073709551615#64 - addr1) :
n = 18446744073709551616 := by
bv_omega
```
The new option `set_option debug.skipKernelTC true` is meant for
temporarily working around kernel performance issues.
It compromises soundness because a buggy tactic may produce an invalid
proof, and the kernel will not catch it if the new option is set to true.
The `pp.maxSteps` option is a hard limit on the complexity of pretty
printer output, which is necessary to prevent the LSP from crashing when
there are accidental large terms. We're using the default value from the
corresponding Lean 3 option.
This PR also sets `pp.deepTerms` to `false` by default.
When the type of an `example` is a proposition,
we should elaborate on them as we elaborate on theorems.
This is particularly important for examples that are often
used in educational material.
Recall that when elaborating theorem headers, we convert unassigned
universe metavariables into universe parameters. The motivation is
that the proof of a theorem should not influence its statement.
However, before this commit, this was not the case for examples when
their type was a proposition.
This discrepancy often confused users.
Additionally, we considered extending the above behavior to definitions
when
1- When their type is a proposition. However, it still caused disruption
in Mathlib.
2- When their type is provided. That is, we would keep the current
behavior only if `: <type>` was omitted. This would make the elaborator
for `def` much closer to the one for `theorem`, but it proved to be too
restrictive.
For example, the following instance in `Core.lean` would fail:
```
instance {α : Sort u} [Setoid α] : HasEquiv α :=
⟨Setoid.r⟩
```
and we would have to write instead:
```
instance {α : Sort u} [Setoid α] : HasEquiv.{u, 0} α :=
⟨Setoid.r⟩
```
There are other failures like this in the core, and we assume many more
in Mathlib.
closes#4398closes#4482 Remark: PR #4482 implements option 1 above. We may consider
it again in the future.
Fixes typo "reflexivitiy" to "reflexivity", and changes exact Eq.rfl to
exact rfl, since Eq.rfl does not exist.
(I got something confused wrt the bot message on #4367 and accidentally
closed that one, so making this one instead, which I think satisfies the
requirements it wanted.)
---------
Co-authored-by: Joachim Breitner <mail@joachim-breitner.de>
this is the simplest of the constructions to be ported from C++ to Lean,
so I’ll PR this one first.
This begins to put each construction into its own file, as it was the
case with C++.
For validation I developed this in a separate repository at
https://github.com/nomeata/lean-constructions/tree/fad715e
and checked that all `.recOn` declarations found in Lean and Mathlib are
identical (per `==`) to the ones produced by the C code.
This is the groundwork for a tactic index in generated documentation, as
there was in Lean 3. There are a few challenges to getting this to work
well in Lean 4:
* There's no natural notion of *tactic identity* - a tactic may be
specified by multiple syntax rules (e.g. the pattern-matching version of
`intro` is specified apart from the default version, but both are the
same from a user perspective)
* There's no natural notion of *tactic name* - here, we take the
pragmatic choice of using the first keyword atom in the tactic's syntax
specification, but this may need to be overridable someday.
* Tactics are extensible, but we don't want to allow arbitrary imports
to clobber existing tactic docstrings, which could become unpredictable
in practice.
For tactic identity, this PR introduces the notion of a *tactic
alternative*, which is a `syntax` specification that is really "the same
as" an existing tactic, but needs to be separate for technical reasons.
This provides a notion of tactic identity, which we can use as the basis
of a tactic index in generated documentation. Alternative forms of
tactics are specified using a new `@[tactic_alt IDENT]` attribute,
applied to the new tactic syntax. It is an error to declare a tactic
syntax rule to be an alternative of another one that is itself an
alternative. Documentation hovers now take alternatives into account,
and display the docs for the canonical name.
*Tactic tags*, created with the `register_tactic_tag` command, specify
tags that may be applied to tactics. This is intended to be used by
doc-gen and Verso. Tags may be applied using the `@[tactic_tag TAG1 TAG2
...]` attribute on a canonical tactic parser, which may be used in any
module to facilitate downstream projects introducing tags that apply to
pre-existing tactics. Tags may not be removed, but it's fine to
redundantly add them. The collection of tags, and the tactics to which
they're applied, can be seen using the `#print tactic tags` command.
*Extension documentation* provides a structured way to document
extensions to tactics. The resulting documentation is gathered into a
bulleted list at the bottom of the tactic's docstring. Extensions are
added using the `tactic_extension TAC` command. This can be used when
adding new interpretations of a tactic via `macro_rules`, when extending
some table or search index used by the tactic, or in any other way. It
is a command to facilitate its flexible use with various extension
mechanisms.
The linters in Batteries can be used to spot mistakes in Lean. See the
message on
[Zulip](https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/270676-lean4/topic/Go-to-def.20on.20typeclass.20fields.20and.20type-dependent.20notation/near/442613564).
These are the different linters with errors:
- unusedArguments:
There are many unused instance arguments, especially a redundant `[Monad
m]` is very common
- checkUnivs:
There was a problem with universes in a definition in
`Init.Control.StateCps`. I fixed it by adding a `variable` statement for
the implicit arguments in the file.
- defLemma:
many proofs are written as `def` instead of `theorem`, most notably
`rfl`. Because `rfl` is used as a match pattern, it must be a def. Is
this desirable?
The keyword `abbrev` is sometimes used for an alias of a theorem, which
also results in a def. I would want to replace it with the `alias`
keyword to fix this, but it isn't available.
- dupNamespace:
I fixed some of these, but left `Tactic.Tactic` and `Parser.Parser` as
they are as these seem intended.
- unusedHaveSuffices:
I cleaned up a few proofs with unused `have` or `suffices`
- explicitVarsOfIff:
I didn't fix any of these, because that would be a breaking change.
- simpNF:
I didn't fix any of these, because I think that requires knowing the
intended simplification order.
This is not the most exciting place to start, but I started here to:
* pick a function with little development in Batteries and Mathlib, so I
wouldn't have conflicts
* that is easy!
* to see how much effort it is to get fairly complete coverage
* and to set up some infrastructure to be used later, i.e.
`tests/lean/run/list_simp.lean`
This assigns priorities to the equational lemmas so that more specific
ones
are tried first before a possible catch-all with possible
side-conditions.
We assign very low priorities to match the simplifiers behavior when
unfolding
a definition, which happens in `simpLoop`’ `visitPreContinue` after
applying
rewrite rules.
Definitions with more than 100 equational theorems will use priority 1
for all
but the last (a heuristic, not perfect).
fixes#4173, to some extent.
`Nat.succ_eq_add_one` and `Nat.pred_eq_sub_one` are now simp lemmas. For
theorems about `Nat.succ` or `Nat.pred` without corresponding theorem
for `+ 1` or `- 1`, this adds the corresponding theorem.
This PR neither adds nor removes material, but improves the organization
of `Init/Data/List/*`.
These files are essentially completely re-ordered, to ensure that
material is developed in a consistent order between `List.Basic`,
`List.Impl`, `List.BasicAux`, and `List.Lemmas`.
Everything is organised in subsections, and I've added some module docs.
This came up when watching new Lean users in a class situation. A number
of them were confused when they omitted a namespace on a constructor
name, and Lean treated the variable as a pattern that matches anything.
For example, this program is accepted but may not do what the user
thinks:
```
inductive Tree (α : Type) where
| leaf
| branch (left : Tree α) (val : α) (right : Tree α)
def depth : Tree α → Nat
| leaf => 0
```
Adding a `branch` case to `depth` results in a confusing message.
With this linter, Lean marks `leaf` with:
```
Local variable 'leaf' resembles constructor 'Tree.leaf' - write '.leaf' (with a dot) or 'Tree.leaf' to use the constructor.
note: this linter can be disabled with `set_option linter.constructorNameAsVariable false`
```
Additionally, the error message that occurs when invalid names are
applied in patterns now suggests similar names. This means that:
```
def length (list : List α) : Nat :=
match list with
| nil => 0
| cons x xs => length xs + 1
```
now results in the following warning on `nil`:
```
warning: Local variable 'nil' resembles constructor 'List.nil' - write '.nil' (with a dot) or 'List.nil' to use the constructor.
note: this linter can be disabled with `set_option linter.constructorNameAsVariable false`
```
and error on `cons`:
```
invalid pattern, constructor or constant marked with '[match_pattern]' expected
Suggestion: 'List.cons' is similar
```
The list of suggested constructors is generated before the type of the
pattern is known, so it's less accurate, but it truncates the list to
ten elements to avoid being overwhelming. This mostly comes up with
`mk`.
We recently discovered inconsistencies in Mathlib and Std over the
ordering of the arguments for `==`.
The most common usage puts the "more variable" term on the LHS, and the
"more constant" term on the RHS, however there are plenty of exceptions,
and they cause unnecessary pain when switching (particularly, sometimes
requiring otherwise unneeded `LawfulBEq` hypotheses).
This convention is consistent with the (obvious) preference for `x == 0`
over `0 == x` when one term is a literal.
We recently updated Std to use this convention
https://github.com/leanprover/std4/pull/430
This PR changes the two major places in Lean that use the opposite
convention, and adds a suggestion to the docstring for `BEq` about the
preferred convention.
The performance issue at #4413 is due to our `Fin.sub` definition.
```
def sub : Fin n → Fin n → Fin n
| ⟨a, h⟩, ⟨b, _⟩ => ⟨(a + (n - b)) % n, mlt h⟩
```
Thus, the following runs out of stack space
```
example (a : UInt64) : a - 1 = a :=
rfl
```
at the `isDefEq` test
```
(a.val.val + 18446744073709551615) % 18446744073709551616 =?= a.val.val
```
From the user's perspective, this timeout is unexpected since they are
using small numerals, and none of the other `Fin` basic operations (such
as `Fin.add` and `Fin.mul`) suffer from this problem.
This PR implements an inelegant solution for the performance issue. It
redefines `Fin.sub` as
```
def sub : Fin n → Fin n → Fin n
| ⟨a, h⟩, ⟨b, _⟩ => ⟨((n - b) + a) % n, mlt h⟩
```
This approach is unattractive because it relies on the fact that
`Nat.add` is defined using recursion on the second argument.
The impact on this repo was small, but we want to evaluate the impact on
Mathlib.
closes#4413
Before this commit, the `theorem` and `def` declarations had different
universe parameter orders.
For example, the following `theorem`:
```
theorem f (a : α) (f : α → β) : f a = f a := by
rfl
```
was elaborated as
```
theorem f.{u_2, u_1} : ∀ {α : Sort u_1} {β : Sort u_2} (a : α) (f : α → β), f a = f a :=
fun {α} {β} a f => Eq.refl (f a)
```
However, if we declare `f` as a `def`, the expected order is produced.
```
def f.{u_1, u_2} : ∀ {α : Sort u_1} {β : Sort u_2} (a : α) (f : α → β), f a = f a :=
fun {α} {β} a f => Eq.refl (f a)
```
This commit fixes this discrepancy.
@semorrison @jcommelin: This might be a disruptive change to Mathlib,
but it is better to fix the issue asap. I am surprised nobody has
complained about this issue before. I discovered it while trying to
reduce discrepancies between `theorem` and `def` elaboration.
