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 generalizes the monadic operations for `HashMap`, `TreeMap`, and
`HashSet` to work for `m : Type u → Type v`.
This upstreams [a workaround from
Aesop](66a992130e/Aesop/Util/Basic.lean (L57-L66)),
and seems to continue a pattern already established in other files, such
as:
```lean
Array.forM.{u, v, w} {α : Type u} {m : Type v → Type w} [Monad m] (f : α → m PUnit) (as : Array α) (start : Nat := 0)
(stop : Nat := as.size) : m PUnit
```
This restores all of the imports of `Lean.Data.HashMap` and
`Lean.Data.HashSet` so that users actually see the deprecation warnings
instead of a "declaration not found" error.
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`.
This definition was clearly meant to be in the `List` namespace, but it
is also in a `namespace Lean` so it ended up as `Lean.List.toSMap`
instead of `List.toSMap`. It would be nice if #3031 made this
unnecessary, but for now this seems to be the convention.
I noticed this because of another side effect: it defines `Lean.List` as
a namespace, which means that
```lean
import Std
namespace Lean
open List
#check [1] <+ [2]
```
does not work as expected, it opens the `Lean.List` namespace instead of
the `List` namespace. Should there be a regression test to ensure that
the `Lean.List` namespace (and maybe others) are not accidentally
created? (Unfortunately this puts a bit of a damper on #3031.)
