This PR gives the `induction` tactic the ability to name hypotheses to
use when generalizing targets, just like in `cases`. For example,
`induction h : xs.length` leads to goals with hypotheses `h : xs.length
= 0` and `h : xs.length = n + 1`. Target handling is also slightly
modified for multi-target induction principles: it used to be that if
any target was not a free variable, all of the targets would be
generalized (thus causing free variables to lose their connection to the
local hypotheses they appear in); now only the non-free-variable targets
are generalized.
This gives `induction` the last basic feature of the mathlib
`induction'` tactic, which has been long-requested. Recent Zulip
discussion:
https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/270676-lean4/topic/To.20replace.20.60induction'.20h.20.3A.20f.20x.60/near/499482173
This PR adds new configuration options to `try?`.
- `try? -only` omits `simp only` and `grind only` suggestions
- `try? +missing` enables partial solutions where some subgoals are
"solved" using `sorry`, and must be manually proved by the user.
- `try? (max:=<num>)` sets the maximum number of suggestions produced
(default is 8).
This PR adds support for more complex suggestions in `try?`. Example:
```lean
example (as : List α) (a : α) : concat as a = as ++ [a] := by
try?
```
suggestion
```
Try this: · induction as, a using concat.induct
· rfl
· simp_all
```
This PR adds the `try?` tactic. This is the first draft, but it can
already solve examples such as:
```lean
example (e : Expr) : e.simplify.eval σ = e.eval σ := by
try?
```
in `grind_constProp.lean`. In the example above, it suggests:
```lean
induction e using Expr.simplify.induct <;> grind?
```
In the same test file, we have
```lean
example (σ₁ σ₂ : State) : σ₁.join σ₂ ≼ σ₂ := by
try?
```
and the following suggestion is produced
```lean
induction σ₁, σ₂ using State.join.induct <;> grind?
```
This PR adds the new attributes `[grind =>]` and `[grind <=]` for
controlling pattern selection and minimizing the number of places where
we have to use verbose `grind_pattern` command. It also fixes a bug in
the new pattern selection procedure, and improves the automatic pattern
selection for local lemmas.
The tests `grind_constProp.lean` and `no_grind_constProp.lean` are the
same use case with and without `grind`.
This PR fixes a few `grind` issues exposed by the `grind_constProp.lean`
test.
- Support for equational theorem hypotheses created before invoking
`grind`. Example: applying an induction principle.s
- Support of `Unit`-like types.
- Missing recursion depth checks.
This PR fixes a bug in the pattern selection heuristic used in `grind`.
It was unfolding definitions/abstractions that were not supposed to be
unfolded. See `grind_constProp.lean` for examples affected by this bug.
