The idea is to match the precedence used in regular programming
languages, where `x = y || x = z` is parsed as `(x = y) || (x = z)`.
This commit also adds `!x` as notation for `bnot x`
Now, the elaborator only uses the quasi-pattern unifier approximation
for inferring the implicit motive in recursor-like applications.
This change was motivated by counterintuitive behavior associated with
this approximation. For example, before this commit
```
variables {δ σ : Type}
def ex1 : state_t δ (state_t σ id) σ :=
monad_lift (get : state_t σ id σ) -- doesn't work
def ex2 : state_t δ (state_t σ id) σ :=
do s ← monad_lift (get : state_t σ id σ), -- works
return s
```
The first one doesn't work because when we elaborate
`@monad_lift ?m ?n ?c ?α (get : state_t σ id σ) : ?n ?α`
with expected type `state_t δ (state_t σ id) σ`
It first produces the following unification problem by processing
matching the inferred type with the expected one.
```
?n ?α =?= state_t δ (state_t σ id) σ
==> (approximate using first-order unification)
?n := state_t δ (state_t σ id)
?α := σ
```
Then we try to solve
```
?m ?α =?= state_t σ id σ
==> instantiate metavars
?m σ =?= state_t σ id σ
==> (approximate since it is a quasi-pattern unification constraint)
?m := λ σ, state_t σ id σ
```
Remark: the constraint is not a Milner pattern because `σ` is in
the local context of `?m`. By assuming it is a Milner pattern,
we are ignoring the other possible solutions:
```
?m := λ σ', state_t σ id σ
?m := λ σ', state_t σ' id σ
?m := λ σ', state_t σ id σ'
```
We need the quasi-pattern approximation for elaborating recursors.
So, this commit enable this kind of approximation only when
elaborating recursors and executing induction-like tactics.
If we had used first-order unification, then we would have produced
the right answer: `?m := state_t σ id`
Haskell would solve this example since it always uses
first-order unification during elaboration.
The second one works because when we elaborate
`monad_lift (get : state_t σ id σ)`, the expected type is `state_t δ (state_t σ id) ?α`.
So, `?m ?α =?= state_t σ id σ` will not considered to be a quasi-pattern
since `?α` is not yet assigned to a local constant.
We are not fully confident this commit produces a better user
experience. We know that
- Full higher-order unification (used in Lean2) produces a combinatoric
explosion, and generates a lot of non-termination in complex type class
hierarchies (monad library, has_coe, etc). The problem is that
higher-order unification manages to create new solutions that we
cannot find using first-order unification.
- Lean3 is more reliable than Lean2 for elaborating monadic code because
it does not use higher-order unification.
- For elaborating recursor-like applications, we need at least the
quasi-patterns. We need it when trying to infer the implicit
motive. First-order unification works poorly in this case. Note that
the lack of higher-order unification in Lean3 forces us to provide the
motive explicitly for terms that Lean2 can elaborate.
- We need quasi-patterns for solving unification constraints in the
induction-like tactics. Similar to the previous item. We use it to infer
the motive. (edited) I will try to disable the quasi-pattern
approximation when elaborating regular applications. At least, we will
behave like Haskell for this kind of application.
Next steps:
- Implement more validators (e.g., blockid validator, type checker).
- Implement C++ code generator (in Lean). We can use it for testing the new
lean_obj module implemented in C++.
- Implement interpreter (in C++) for sanity checking.
- Implement LLVM IR generator (in Lean). It just outputs a text file using LLVM
syntax. After, we are confident we are generating valid LLVM IR, we
can try to link LLVM with Lean.
Remark: the non monadic versions are called list.all and list.any.
We did not use `list.mall` and `list.many` since `mall` and `many` are
existing words.
All theorems are proved without using the tactic framework.
Thus, we can define `fin/uint32/uint64` types and their operations
before we define the tactic framework.
With the current elaboration scheme, out_params and coercions do not mix well,
as evidenced by the following example by @digama:
```
variables {α : Type*} [group α]
def gpow : α → ℤ → α := sorry
instance group.has_pow : has_pow α ℤ := ⟨gpow⟩
example (a : α) : a ^ 0 = 1 := sorry -- failed to synth ⊢ has_pow α ℕ
example (a : α) : a ^ (0:ℕ) = 1 := sorry -- ok, coerces
example (a : α) : a ^ (0:ℤ) = 1 := sorry -- ok
```
The issue is that
* we first try to solve `has_pow ?α ?β`, which is postponed
* then infer `?α = nat` from `a`
* then at some point call `elaborator::synthesize()` and default `β` to `nat`
* then try to solve `has_pow nat nat`, which fails at `int =?= nat`
