We need this feature for:
1) Defining nonlinear search patterns. Example: (?m <= ?m + 1)
2) Preprocessing recursive equations and support the pattern
refinement approach used in Agda. Example: in Agda, they accept
```
def append {A : Type} : Π (m n : nat), Vec A m -> Vec A n -> Vec A (m + n)
| m n nil ys := ys
| m n (cons m' x xs) ys := cons x (append m' n xs ys)
```
These equations have to be refined. For example, `m` has to be
replaced with `0` (in the first equation), and `succ m'` in the
second. To implement this kind of refinement, we need to convert
the pattern variables (local constants) into metavariables during
elaboration. Then, the unassigned metavariables become local constants
again. This preprocessing step will fix some of the issues on #1594.
To completely fix#1594, we will need yet another preprocessing step
which will implement "complete transition" used in the equation
compiler before we start elim_match.cpp
This modification was suggested by @kha.
TODO:
- Use `simp [-f]` instead of `simp without f`
- Allow users to remove hypothesis from `*`. Example: `simp [*, -h]`
for simplify using all hypotheses but `h`.
Before this commit, the `by_cases p` tactic would synthesize
`inst : decidable p` type class resolution, and then use the
`cases` tactic (dependent elimination). This would create
problems since occurrences of `inst` would be replaced with
`decidable.is_true h` in one branch, and `decidable.is_false h` in the
other. Where `h`s (we have two of them, one for each branch) are
fresh hypotheses introduced by the `cases` tactic.
For example, assume we have the term in our goal.
`@ite p inst A a b`
This term would become
`@ite p (decidable.is_true h) A a b` (in the first branch where `h : p`)
and
`@ite p (decidable.is_false h) A a b` (in the second where `h : not p`)
Now, suppose we try to executed the following tactic in the first branch
`rw [if_pos h]`
it will fail since `if_pos h` is actually `@if_pos p inst h`, and
we will not be able to unify
`@ite p (decidable.is_true h) A a b =?= @ite p inst ?A ?a ?b`
This commit workarounds this problem by applying cases on
`@decidable.em p inst : p or not p` instead of `inst : decidable p`.
Thus, the term `inst` is not replaced with `decidable.is_true h` and
`decidable.is_false h`.
The new test `tests/lean/run/simp_dif.lean` demonstrates the problem above.
See issue #1694.
There is an orthogonal issue. `simp` (and consequently `unfold`) cannot be used to
reduce projections (e.g., `has_add.add`). This issue has been
previously raised by @Armael, but it was not addressed yet.
closes#1675
After this commit, the following example works as expected.
```
example (p : nat → Prop) (a b : nat) : a = 0 ∧ b = 0 → p (a + b) → p 0 :=
begin
intros h₁ h₂,
simp [h₁] at *,
/- produces the state
(p : nat → Prop) (a b : nat)
h₁ : true
h₂ : p 0
|- p 0
-/
assumption
end
```
as expected.
Remark: the original issue raised by issue #1675 is actually solved by the
`simp_all` tactic.
It now performs self simplification, and the performance is slightly
better. As described at issue #1675, only non dependent propositions
are considered.
@Armael: this tactic may be useful for you
