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`
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`
This command is not just a cosmetic feature.
We need it to defined `id_rhs` before the tactic framework is defined.
We want `id_rhs` to be used in all definitions generated by the equation
compiler. Right now, it is only used in definitions defined after the
tactic framework.
@kha: I decided to implement this change before I start the
type_context modifications. The change did not affect the corelib and
test suite much. The only annoying problem is that `out` cannot be
used to name locals anymore.
This way people can search for "constant quot" and find it in the lean source. Plus the init_quotient command only occurs once, so this way people know what it means.
See Section "Other goodies" at
https://github.com/leanprover/lean/wiki/Refactoring-structures
This commit also improves the support for projections in the
unifier/matcher.
Now, we consider the extra case-split for projections.
Given a projection `proj`, and the constraint `proj s =?= proj t`, we need to try first `s =?= t` and if it fails, then try to reduce.
This is needed in the standard library because we now have constraints such as:
```
@has_le.le ?A ?s ?a ?b =?= @has_le.le nat nat.has_add x y
```
If we reduce the right hand side, we get the unsolvable constraint
```
@has_le.le ?A ?s ?a ?b =?= nat.le x y
```
Before this change, the constraint was `@le ?A ?s ?a ?b =?= @le nat nat.has_add x y`, and we already perform a case-split in this case.
Moreover, projections were eagerly reduced whenever possible.
The extra case-split generates a performance problem in several tests. For example `fib 8 = 34` was timing out.
I worked around this issue by performing the case-split only when the constraint contains meta-variables.
There are also minor issues. Example. `<` is notation for `has_lt.lt`, but `>` is for `gt`.
There were two performance bottlenecks in the recursive equation
compiler. Both bottlenecks were due to conversion checking.
1- We allow patterns such as (x+1) in the left-hand-side of a
recursive equation. This is kind of pattern has to be reduced
since it is not a constructor. Moreover, when we are trying to
compile using structural recursion, we need to find an element
that is structurally smaller in recursive applications.
Again, we need to use reduction since the pattern may be (x+2),
and in the recursive application we have (x+1). Now, consider
the following equation
f (x+1) (y+1) := f complex_term y
It will first check whether complex_term is structurally smaller
than (x+1), and the compiler will timeout trying to reduce
complex_term.
This commit adds the following workaround. The structural
recursion module from now on will only unfold reducible constants
and constants marked as patterns. This is not a complete
solution. It will timeout in the following equation:
f (x+1) (y+1) := f (x+1000000000000) y
For this one, we need to add a whnf "fuel" option to type_context
2- Equational lemma generation was producing lemmas that are too
expensive to check. Suppose we the following two definitions
| f x 0 := 1
| f x (y+1) := f complex_term y
and
| g 0 y := 1
| g (x+1) y := g x complex_term
Before this commit, we would generate the following proofs for
the second equation of each definition:
eq.refl (f complex_term y)
eq.refl (g x complex_term)
This proof triggers the following definitionally equality test:
f x (y+1) =?= f complex_term y
g (x+1) y =?= g x complex_term
Since, we have f/g on both sides, the type checker will try
first to unify the arguments, and may timeout trying to solve
x =?= complex_term
y =?= complex_term
since it may take a long time to reduce `complex_term`.
We workaround this problem by creating a slightly different
proof.
eq.refl (unfold_of(f x (y+1)))
eq.refl (unfold_of(g (x+1) y))
where unfold_of(t) is the result of applying one delta reduction
step.
(Type u) is the old (Type (u+1))
(PType u) is the old (Type u)
Type* is the old (Type (_+1))
PType* is the old Type*
The stdlib can be compiled, but we still have > 70 broken tests
See discussion at #1341
