This PR migrates usages of `Std.Range` to the new polymorphic ranges.
This PR unfortunately increases the transitive imports for
frequently-used parts of `Init` because the ranges now rely on iterators
in order to provide their functionality for types other than `Nat`.
However, iteration over ranges in compiled code is as efficient as
before in the examples I checked. This is because of a special
`IteratorLoop` implementation provided in the PR for this purpose.
There were two issues that were uncovered during migration:
* In `IndPredBelow.lean`, migrating the last remaining range causes
`compilerTest1.lean` to break. I have minimized the issue and came to
the conclusion it's a compiler bug. Therefore, I have not replaced said
old range usage yet (see #9186).
* In `BRecOn.lean`, we are publicly importing the ranges. Making this
import private should theoretically work, but there seems to be a
problem with the module system, causing the build to panic later in
`Init.Data.Grind.Poly` (see #9185).
* In `FuzzyMatching.lean`, inlining fails with the new ranges, which
would have led to significant slowdown. Therefore, I have not migrated
this file either.
This PR makes the signatures of `find` functions across
`List`/`Array`/`Vector` consistent. Verification lemmas will follow in
subsequent PRs.
We were previously quite inconsistent about the signature of
`indexOf`/`findIdx` functions across `List` and `Array`. Moreover, there
are still quite large gaps in the verification lemma coverage for these
even at the `List` level.
My intention is to make the signatures consistent by providing:
`findIdx` / `findIdx?` / `findFinIdx?` (these all take a predicate, and
return respectively a `Nat`, `Option Nat`, `Option (Fin l.length)`) and
similarly `idxOf` / `idxOf?` / `finIdxOf?` (which look for an element)
for each of List/Array/Vector. I've seen enough examples by now where
each variant is genuinely the most convenient at the call-site, so I'm
going to accept the cost of having many closely related functions.
*Hopefully* for the verification lemmas we can simp all of these into
"projections" of the `Option (Fin l.length)` versions, and then only
have to specify that.
However, I will not plan on immediately either filling in the missing
verification lemmas (or even deciding what the simp normal forms
relating these operations are), and just reach parity amongst
List/Array/Vector for what is already there.
This PR replaces `Array.feraseIdx` and `Array.insertAt` with
`Array.eraseIdx` and `Array.insertIdx`, both of which take a `Nat`
argument and a tactic-provided proof that it is in bounds. We also have
`eraseIdxIfInBounds` and `insertIdxIfInBounds` which are noops if the
index is out of bounds. We also provide a `Fin` valued version of
`Array.findIdx?`. Together, these quite ergonomically improve the array
indexing safety at a number of places in the compiler/elaborator.
This PR changes the signature of `Array.get` to take a Nat and a proof,
rather than a `Fin`, for consistency with the rest of the (planned)
Array API. Note that because of bootstrapping issues we can't provide
`get_elem_tactic` as an autoparameter for the proof. As users will
mostly use the `xs[i]` notation provided by `GetElem`, this hopefully
isn't a problem.
We may restore `Fin` based versions, either here or downstream, as
needed, but they won't be the "main" functions.
---------
Co-authored-by: David Thrane Christiansen <david@davidchristiansen.dk>
it seems to be unused, arguably even for kernel recursors their type
should be usable with `mkRecursorInfo`, and removing this will help
understand the impact of #5679.
@Kha I marked the corresponding methods as `protected`.
I currently can't stand `throw_error`, and I am optimistic about
server highlighting feature you are working on :)
