This PR changes the interface of the `ForIn`, `ForIn'`, and `ForM`
typeclasses to not take a `Monad m` parameter. This is a breaking change
for most downstream `instance`s, which will will now need to assume
`[Monad m]`.
The rationale is that if the provider of an instance requires `m` to be
a Monad, they should assume this up front. This makes it possible for
the instanve to assume `LawfulMonad m` or some other stronger
requirement, and also to provided a concrete instance for a particular
`m` without assuming a non-canonical `Monad` structure on it.
Zulip: [#lean4 > Monad assumptions in fields of other typeclasses @
💬](https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/270676-lean4/topic/Monad.20assumptions.20in.20fields.20of.20other.20typeclasses/near/537102158)
This PR reworks the `simp` set around the `Id` monad, to not elide or
unfold `pure` and `Id.run`
In particular, it stops encoding the "defeq abuse" of `Id X = X` in the
statements of theorems, instead using `Id.run` and `pure` to pass back
and forth between these two spellings. Often when writing these with
`pure`, they generalize to other lawful monads; though such changes were
split off to other PRs.
This fixes the problem with the current simp set where `Id.run (pure x)`
is simplified to `Id.run x`, instead of the desirable `x`.
This is particularly bad because the` x` is sometimes inferred with type
`Id X` instead of `X`, which prevents other `simp` lemmas about `X` from
firing.
Making `Id` reducible instead is not an option, as then the `Monad`
instances would have nothing to key on.
---------
Co-authored-by: Sebastian Graf <sg@lean-fro.org>
Co-authored-by: Kim Morrison <kim@tqft.net>
Co-authored-by: Paul Reichert <6992158+datokrat@users.noreply.github.com>
This PR makes the style of all `List` docstrings that appear in the
language reference consistent.
Relies on #7240 for links and example formatting.
---------
Co-authored-by: Kim Morrison <kim@tqft.net>
This PR moves away from using `List.get` / `List.get?` / `List.get!` and
`Array.get!`, in favour of using the `GetElem` mediated getters. In
particular it deprecates `List.get?`, `List.get!` and `Array.get?`. Also
adds `Array.back`, taking a proof, matching `List.getLast`.
This PR modifies the signature of the functions `Nat.fold`,
`Nat.foldRev`, `Nat.any`, `Nat.all`, so that the function is passed the
upper bound. This allows us to change runtime array bounds checks to
compile time checks in many places.
This PR changes the signature of `Array.get` to take a Nat and a proof,
rather than a `Fin`, for consistency with the rest of the (planned)
Array API. Note that because of bootstrapping issues we can't provide
`get_elem_tactic` as an autoparameter for the proof. As users will
mostly use the `xs[i]` notation provided by `GetElem`, this hopefully
isn't a problem.
We may restore `Fin` based versions, either here or downstream, as
needed, but they won't be the "main" functions.
---------
Co-authored-by: David Thrane Christiansen <david@davidchristiansen.dk>
This PR changes the signature of `Array.set` to take a `Nat`, and a
tactic-provided bound, rather than a `Fin`.
Corresponding changes (but without the auto-param) for `Array.get` will
arrive shortly, after which I'll go more pervasively through the Array
API.
I made a few choices so far that can probably be discussed:
- got rid of `modn` on `UInt`, nobody seems to use it apart from the
definition of `shift` which can use normal `mod`
- removed the previous defeq optimized definition of `USize.size` in
favor for a normal one. The motivation was to allow `OfNat` to work
which doesn't seem to be necessary anymore afaict.
- Minimized uses of `.val`, should we maybe mark it deprecated?
- Mostly got rid of `.val` in basically all theorems as the proper next
level of API would now be `.toBitVec`. We could probably re-prove them
but it would be more annoying given the change of definition.
- Did not yet redefine `log2` in terms of `BitVec` as this would require
a `log2` in `BitVec` as well, do we want this?
- I added a couple of theorems around the relation of `<` on `UInt` and
`Nat`. These were previously not needed because defeq was used all over
the place to save us. I did not yet generalize these to all types as I
wasn't sure if they are the appropriate lemma that we want to have.
This makes changes to the `GetElem` class so that it does not lead to
unnecessary overhead in container like `RBMap`.
The changes are to:
1. Make `getElem?` and `getElem!` part of the `GetElem` class so they
can be overridden in instances.
2. Introduce a `LawfulGetElem` class that contains correctness theorems
for `getElem?` and `getElem!` using the original definitions.
3. Reorganize definitions (e.g, by moving `GetElem` out of
`Init.Prelude`) so that the `GetElem` changes are feasible.
4. Provide `LawfulGetElem` instances to complement all existing
`GetElem` instances in Lean core.
To reduce the size of the PR, this doesn't do the work of providing new
`GetElem` instances for `RBMap`, `HashMap` etc. That will be done in a
separate PR (#3688) that depends on this.
---------
Co-authored-by: Mac Malone <tydeu@hatpress.net>
[Before](https://github.com/leanprover/lean4/files/14772220/oi.pdf) and
[after](https://github.com/leanprover/lean4/files/14772226/oi2.pdf).
This gets `ByteArray`, `String.Extra`, `ToString.Macro` and `RCases` out
of the imports of `omega`. I'd hoped to get `Array.Subarray` too, but
it's tangled up in the list literal syntax. Further progress could come
from make `split` use available `Decidable` instances, so we could pull
out `Classical` (and possibly some of `PropLemmas`).
