This PR implements the option `revert`, which is set to `false` by
default. To recover the old `grind` behavior, you should use `grind
+revert`. Previously, `grind` used the `RevSimpIntro` idiom, i.e., it
would revert all hypotheses and then re-introduce them while simplifying
and applying eager `cases`. This idiom created several problems:
* Users reported that `grind` would include unnecessary parameters. See
[here](https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/270676-lean4/topic/Grind.20aggressively.20includes.20local.20hypotheses.2E/near/554887715).
* Unnecessary section variables were also being introduced. See the new
test contributed by Sebastian Graf.
* Finally, it prevented us from supporting arbitrary parameters as we do
in `simp`. In `simp`, I implemented a mechanism that simulates local
universe-polymorphic theorems, but this approach could not be used in
`grind` because there is no mechanism for reverting (and re-introducing)
local universe-polymorphic theorems. Adding such a mechanism would
require substantial work: I would need to modify the local context
object. I considered maintaining a substitution from the original
variables to the new ones, but this is also tricky, because the mapping
would have to be stored in the `grind` goal objects, and it is not just
a simple mapping. After reverting everything, I would need to keep a
sequence of original variables that must be added to the mapping as we
re-introduce them, but eager case splits complicate this quite a bit.
The whole approach felt overly messy.
The new behavior `grind -revert` addresses all these issues. None of the
`grind` proofs in our test suite broke after we fixed the bugs exposed
by the new feature. That said, the traces and counterexamples produced
by `grind` are different. The new proof terms are also different.
This PR makes `#guard_msgs` to treat `trace` messages separate from
`info`, `warning` and `error`. It also introduce the ability to say
`#guard_msgs (pass info`, like `(drop info)` so far, and also adds
`(check info)` as the explicit form of `(info)`, for completeness.
Fixes#8266
This PR improves the E-matching pattern inference procedure in `grind`.
Consider the following theorem:
```lean
@[grind →]
theorem eq_empty_of_append_eq_empty {xs ys : Array α} (h : xs ++ ys = #[]) : xs = #[] ∧ ys = #[] :=
append_eq_empty_iff.mp h
```
Before this PR, `grind` inferred the following pattern:
```lean
@HAppend.hAppend _ _ _ _ #2#1
```
Note that this pattern would match any `++` application, even if it had
nothing to do with arrays. With this PR, the inferred pattern becomes:
```lean
@HAppend.hAppend (Array #3) (Array _) (Array _) _ #2#1
```
With the new pattern, the theorem will not be considered by `grind` for
goals that do not involve `Array`s.
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 adds a simple strategy to the (WIP) `grind` tactic. It just
keeps internalizing new theorem instances found by E-matching. The
simple strategy can solve examples such as:
```lean
grind_pattern Array.size_set => Array.set a i v h
grind_pattern Array.get_set_eq => a.set i v h
grind_pattern Array.get_set_ne => (a.set i v hi)[j]
example (as bs : Array α) (v : α)
(i : Nat)
(h₁ : i < as.size)
(h₂ : bs = as.set i v)
: as.size = bs.size := by
grind
example (as bs cs : Array α) (v : α)
(i : Nat)
(h₁ : i < as.size)
(h₂ : bs = as.set i v)
(h₃ : cs = bs)
(h₄ : i ≠ j)
(h₅ : j < cs.size)
(h₆ : j < as.size)
: cs[j] = as[j] := by
grind
opaque R : Nat → Nat → Prop
theorem Rtrans (a b c : Nat) : R a b → R b c → R a c := sorry
grind_pattern Rtrans => R a b, R b c
example : R a b → R b c → R c d → R d e → R a d := by
grind
```
This PR adds support for activating relevant theorems for the (WIP)
`grind` tactic. We say a theorem is relevant to a `grind` goal if the
symbols occurring in its patterns also occur in the goal.
