This PR neither adds nor removes material, but improves the organization
of `Init/Data/List/*`.
These files are essentially completely re-ordered, to ensure that
material is developed in a consistent order between `List.Basic`,
`List.Impl`, `List.BasicAux`, and `List.Lemmas`.
Everything is organised in subsections, and I've added some module docs.
The performance issue at #4413 is due to our `Fin.sub` definition.
```
def sub : Fin n → Fin n → Fin n
| ⟨a, h⟩, ⟨b, _⟩ => ⟨(a + (n - b)) % n, mlt h⟩
```
Thus, the following runs out of stack space
```
example (a : UInt64) : a - 1 = a :=
rfl
```
at the `isDefEq` test
```
(a.val.val + 18446744073709551615) % 18446744073709551616 =?= a.val.val
```
From the user's perspective, this timeout is unexpected since they are
using small numerals, and none of the other `Fin` basic operations (such
as `Fin.add` and `Fin.mul`) suffer from this problem.
This PR implements an inelegant solution for the performance issue. It
redefines `Fin.sub` as
```
def sub : Fin n → Fin n → Fin n
| ⟨a, h⟩, ⟨b, _⟩ => ⟨((n - b) + a) % n, mlt h⟩
```
This approach is unattractive because it relies on the fact that
`Nat.add` is defined using recursion on the second argument.
The impact on this repo was small, but we want to evaluate the impact on
Mathlib.
closes#4413
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>
Motivation: make sure the behavior is consistent with other arithmetic
operators.
This commit also removes the instance
```
instance : HMod (Fin n) Nat (Fin n) where
hMod := Fin.modn
```
because we have a coercion from `Fin n` to `Nat`.
Thus, given `a : Fin n` and `b : Nat`, `a % b` is ambiguous.
@Kha I had some unexpected surprises, but it is a good change.
Here is the summary.
1- We could get rid of `a %ₙ b` and `ModN` class. We can use `HMod`
instead. It was a positive surprise since I didn't remember we had
this `ModN` class.
2- Coercions are never used in heterogeneous operators. This is
expected since `a * b` is now notation for `HMul.hMul a b`, and
`a` and `b` may have different types. I manually added instances such
as `HMul Nat Int Int`. However, I did not try to add generic instances
such as
```
instance [Coe a b] [Mul b] : HMul a b b where
hMul x y := mul (coe x) y
```
I will try later.
3- Give `h : cs.size > 0`, I got a type error at
```
let idx : Fin cs.size := ⟨cs.size - 1, Nat.predLt h⟩
```
`Nat.predLt h` has type `Nat.pred cs.size < cs.size`
However, `Nat.pred cs.size` doesn't unify with `cs.size - 1`.
The problem is that we can't synthesize the `HSub` instance until
we apply the default instances.
It worked before because `isDefEq` would force the pending TC
problem `Sub Nat` to be resolved, and after that we would be able
to reduce `cs.size - 1` and establish that it is definitionally
equal to `Nat.pred cs.size`.
I considered two possible workarounds
a) `let idx : Fin cs.size := ⟨cs.size - (1:Nat), Nat.predLt h⟩`
b) `let idx : Fin cs.size := ⟨cs.size - 1, by exact Nat.predLt h⟩`
The first one works because we are not providing enough information
for synthesizing the `HSub` instance. The second works because it
postpones the elaboration of `Nat.predLt h`. The default instances
will be applied before we start applying tactics.
4- The `.` notation is affected too. For example, `(x + 1).toUInt8`
doesn't work since we don't know the type of `x+1` until we apply
default instances. I fixed it by using `(x + (1:Nat)).toUInt8`.
Another possible fix is `Nat.toUInt8 (x + 1)`.
Similarly, `(x+1).fold ...` doesn't work.
5- The following code failed to be elaborated
```
indent (push s!"{ss'}\n") (some (0 - Format.getIndent (← getOptions)))
```
It was working before, but it relied on how the expected type is
propagated. The elaborator process
```
some (0 - Format.getIndent (← getOptions))
```
with expected type `(Option Int)`. So, the `-` is interpreted as
`Int.sub` although `Format.getIndent (← getOptions)` has type `Nat`.
In the new `HSub`, the expected type doesn't really influence TC
resolution since it is an `outparam`. So, we failed with the error
failed to synthesize `HSub Nat Nat Int`.
One possible fix was to add the instance `HSub Nat Nat Int` with
`Int.sub`, but I used the following fix
```
some ((0 : Int) - Format.getIndent (← getOptions))
```
which makes it clear that we want the `Int.sub` operator instead of
`Nat.sub`.
