This PR replaces `List.lt` with `List.Lex`, from Mathlib, and adds the
new `Bool` valued lexicographic comparatory function `List.lex`. This
subtly changes the definition of `<` on Lists in some situations.
`List.lt` was a weaker relation: in particular if `l₁ < l₂`, then
`a :: l₁ < b :: l₂` may hold according to `List.lt` even if `a` and `b`
are merely incomparable
(either neither `a < b` nor `b < a`), whereas according to `List.Lex`
this would require `a = b`.
When `<` is total, in the sense that `¬ · < ·` is antisymmetric, then
the two relations coincide.
Mathlib was already overriding the order instances for `List α`,
so this change should not be noticed by anyone already using Mathlib.
We simultaneously add the boolean valued `List.lex` function,
parameterised by a `BEq` typeclass
and an arbitrary `lt` function. This will support the flexibility
previously provided for `List.lt`,
via a `==` function which is weaker than strict equality.
This change
* moves `termination_by` and `decreasing_by` next to the function they
apply to
* simplify the syntax of `termination_by`
* apply the `decreasing_by` goal to all goals at once, for better
interactive use.
See the section in `RELEASES.md` for more details and migration advise.
This is a hard breaking change, requiring developers to touch every
`termination_by` in their code base. We decided to still do it as a
hard-breaking change, because supporting both old and new syntax at the
same time would be non-trivial, and not save that much. Moreover, this
requires changes to some metaprograms that developers might have
written, and supporting both syntaxes at the same time would make
_their_ migration harder.
We are considering removing `.` as an alternative for `·` in the
lambda dot notation (e.g., `(·+·)`).
Reasons:
- `.` is not a perfect replacement for `·` (e.g., `(·.insert ·)`)
- `.` is too overloaded: `(f.x)` and `(f .x)` and `(f . x)`. We want to keep the first two.
