This PR changes how Lean proves the equational theorems for structural
recursion. The core idea is to let-bind the `f` argument to `brecOn` and
rewriting `.brecOn` with an unfolding theorem. This means no extra case
split for the `.rec` in `.brecOn` is needed, and `simp` doesn't change
the `f` argument which can break the definitional equality with the
defined function. With this, we can prove the unfolding theorem first,
and derive the equational theorems from that, like for all other ways of
defining recursive functions.
Backs out the changes from #10415, the old strategy works well with the
new goals.
Fixes#5667Fixes#10431Fixes#10195Fixes#2962
This PR changes the order of steps tried when proving equational
theorems for structural recursion. In order to avoid goals that `split`
cannot handle, avoid unfolding the LHS of the equation to `.brecOn` and
`.rec` until after the RHS has been split into its final cases.
Fixes: #10195
This PR lets the `split` tactic generalize discriminants that are not
free variables and proofs using `generalize`. If the only
non-fvar-discriminants are proofs, then this avoids the more elaborate
generalization strategy of `split`, which can fail with dependent
motives, thus mitigating issue #10424.
This PR modifies pretty printing of `fun` binders, suppressing the safe
shadowing feature among the binders in the same `fun`. For example,
rather than pretty printing as `fun x x => 0`, we now see `fun x x_1 =>
0`. The calculation is done per `fun`, so for example `fun x => id fun x
=> 0` pretty prints as-is, taking advantage of safe shadowing.
The motivation for this change is that many users have reported that
safe shadowing within the same `fun` is confusing.
