now that we support structural mutual recursion, I expect that every
`DecidableEq` instance be implemented using structural recursion, so
let's be explicit about it.
Some eliminators (such as `False.rec`) have an explicit motive argument.
The `elabAsElim` elaborator assumed that all motives are implicit.
If the explicit motive argument is `_`, then it uses the elab-as-elim
procedure, and otherwise it falls back to the standard app elaborator.
Furthermore, if an explicit elaborator is not provided, it falls back to
treating the elaborator as being implicit, which is convenient for
writing `h.rec` rather than `h.rec _`. Rationale: for `False.rec`, this
simulates it having an implicit motive, and also motives are generally
not going to be available in the expected type.
Closes#4347
Before, the delaborator was conservative about omitting optional
arguments, only omitting the very last one. Now it can omit arbitrarily
long sequences of optional arguments from the end.
For simplicity of implementation, every optional argument is delaborated
and then potentially discarded. It could save state and lazily
delaborate, but we're running under the hypothesis that most optional
arguments are for very simple values (like `true`, `false`, or a numeric
literal), so it is unlikely that efficiency gains, if any, are worth it.
In particular, in the future structure constructors will have optional
arguments, but `unexpandStructureInstance` assumes none of the optional
fields are omitted.
Closes#4812
when transforming the `match` statements in `IndPredBelow`, given a
local variable `x : T`, we need to search for `hx : T.below x`.
Previously this was done using the custom `backwardsChaining` method,
although my hypothesis is that we don’t need to chain anything here, and
can use `apply_assumption`.
this improves support for structural recursion over inductive
*predicates* when there are reflexive arguments.
Consider
```lean
inductive F: Prop where
| base
| step (fn: Nat → F)
-- set_option trace.Meta.IndPredBelow.search true
set_option pp.proofs true
def F.asdf1 : (f : F) → True
| base => trivial
| step f => F.asdf1 (f 0)
termination_by structural f => f`
```
Previously the search for the right induction hypothesis would fail with
```
could not solve using backwards chaining x✝¹ : F
x✝ : x✝¹.below
f : Nat → F
a✝¹ : ∀ (a : Nat), (f a).below
a✝ : Nat → True
⊢ True
```
The backchaining process will try to use `a✝ : Nat → True`, but then has
no idea what to use for `Nat`.
There are three steps here to fix this.
1. We let-bind the function's type before the whole process. Now the
goal is
```
funType : F → Prop := fun x => True
x✝ : x✝¹.below
f : Nat → F
a✝¹ : ∀ (a : Nat), (f a).below
a✝ : ∀ (a : Nat), funType (f a)
⊢ funType (f 0)
```
2. Instead of using the general purpose backchaining proof search, which
is more
powerful than we need here (we need on recursive search and no
backtracking),
we have a custom search that looks for local assumptions that
provide evidence of `funType`, and extracts the arguments from that
“type” application to construct the recursive call.
Above, it will thus unify `f a =?= f 0`.
3. In order to make progress here, we also turn on use
`withoutProofIrrelevance`,
because else `isDefEq` is happy to say “they are equal” without actually
looking
at the terms and thus assigning `?a := 0`.
This idea of let-binding the function's motive may also be useful for
the other recursion compilers, as it may simplify the FunInd
construction. This is to be investigated.
fixes#4751
The function `locationLinksFromDecl` could throw an error if the name it
is provided doesn't exist in the environment, which is possible if for
example an elaborator is a builtin.
Closes#3789
Adds the `--log-level=<lv>` CLI option for controlling the minimum log
level Lake should output. For instance, `--log-level=error` will only
print errors (not warnings or info).
Also, adds the parallel `--fail-level` CLI option to control what the
minimum log level of build failures is. The existing `--iofail` and
`--wfail` options are equivalent to `--fail-level=info` and
`--fail-level=warning` , respectively.
Closes#4805,
Due to nested recursion, we do two passes of `getRecArgInfo`: One on
each argument in isolation, to see which inductive types are around
(e.g. `Tree` and `List`), and
then we later refine/replace this result with the data for the nested
type former (the implicit `ListTree`).
If we have nested recursion through a non-recursive data type like
`Array` or `Prod` then arguemnts of these types should survive the first
phase, so that we can still use them when looking for, say, `Array
Tree`.
This was helpfully reported by @arthur-adjedj.
For every parenthesized expression `(foo)`, the InfoView produces an
interactive component both for `(foo)` itself and its subexpression
`foo` because the corresponding `TaggedText` in the language server is
duplicated as well. Both of these subexpressions have the same
subexpression position and so they are identical w.r.t. interactive
features.
Removing this duplication would help reduce the size of the DOM of the
InfoView and ensure that the UI for InfoView features is consistent for
`(foo)` and `foo` (e.g. hovers would always highlight `(foo)`, not
either `(foo)` or `foo` depending on whether the mouse cursor is on the
bracket or not). It would also help resolve a bug where selecting a
subexpression will yield selection highlighting both for `(foo)` and
`foo`, as we use the subexpression position to identify which terms to
highlight.
This PR adjusts the parenthesizer to move the corresponding info instead
of duplicating it.
Draft of adding ci workflow using lean-action on `lake new/init`
This PR is currently missing lake options for the user to control this
feature.
Closes#4606
---------
Co-authored-by: Mac Malone <tydeu@hatpress.net>
When resolving anonymous dot notation (`.ident x y z`), it would reduce
the expected type to whnf. Now, it unfolds definitions step-by-step,
even if the type synonym is for a pi type like so
```lean
def Foo : Prop := ∀ a : Nat, a = a
protected theorem Foo.intro : Foo := sorry
example : Foo := .intro
```
Closes#4761
After each tactic step, we save the info tree created by it together
with an appropriate info tree context that makes it stand-alone (which
we already did before to some degree, see `Info.updateContext?`). Then,
in the adjusted request handlers, we first search for a snapshot task
containing the required position, if so wait on it, and if it yielded an
info tree, use it to answer the request, or else continue searching and
waiting, falling back to the full info tree, which should be unchanged
by this PR.
The definition header does *not* report info trees early as in general
it is not stand-alone in the tactic sense but may contain e.g.
metavariables solved by the body in which case we do want to show the
ultimate state as before. This could be refined in the future in case
there are no unsolved mvars.
The adjusted request handlers are exactly the ones waited on together by
the info view, so they all have to be adjusted to have any effect on the
UX. Further request handlers may be adjusted in the future.
No new tests as "replies early" is not something we can test with our
current framework but the existing test suite did help in uncovering
functional regressions.
