as #4527 describes there is inconsistency between `by`, `case` and
`next` on the one hand who, if the goal isn’t closed, put squiggly
underlines on the first line, and `.`, which so far only squiggled the
dot (which is a very short symbol!)
With this change the same mechanism as used by `case`, namely
`withCaseRef`, is also used for `.`.
There is an argument for the status quo: The `.` tactic is more commonly
used
with further tactics on the same line, and thus there is now a higher
risk that
the user might think that the first tactic is broken. But
* the same argument does apply to `by` and `case` where there was an
intentional
choice to do it this way
* consistency and
* a squiggly line just under the short `.` is easy to miss, so it is
actually
better to underlining more here (at least until we have a better way to
indicate incomplete proofs, which I have hopes for)
Fixes#4527, at least most of it.
