This PR eliminates uses of `intros x y z` (with arguments) and updates
the `intros` docstring to suggest that `intro x y z` should be used
instead. The `intros` tactic is historical, and can be traced all the
way back to Lean 2, when `intro` could only introduce a single
hypothesis. Since 2020, the `intro` tactic has superceded it. The
`intros` tactic (without arguments) is currently still useful.
This PR enables transforming nondependent `let`s into `have`s in a
number of contexts: the bodies of nonrecursive definitions, equation
lemmas, smart unfolding definitions, and types of theorems. A motivation
for this change is that when zeta reduction is disabled, `simp` can only
effectively rewrite `have` expressions (e.g. `split` uses `simp` with
zeta reduction disabled), and so we cache the nondependence calculations
by transforming `let`s to `have`s. The transformation can be disabled
using `set_option cleanup.letToHave false`.
Uses `Meta.letToHave`, introduced in #8954.
This PR improves the functional cases principles, by making a more
educated guess which function parameters should be targets and which
should remain parameters (or be dropped). This simplifies the
principles, and increases the chance that `fun_cases` can unfold the
function call.
Fixes#8296 (at least for the common cases, I hope.)
This PR improves the generation of `.induct_unfolding` by rewriting
`match` statements more reliably, using the new “congruence equations”
introduced in #8284. Fixes#8195.
This PR adds the “unfolding” variant of the functional induction and
functional cases principles, under the name `foo.induct_unfolding` resp.
`foo.fun_cases_unfolding`. These theorems combine induction over the
structure of a recursive function with the unfolding of that function,
and should be more reliable, easier to use and more efficient than just
case-splitting and then rewriting with equational theorems.
For example instead of
```
ackermann.induct
(motive : Nat → Nat → Prop)
(case1 : ∀ (m : Nat), motive 0 m)
(case2 : ∀ (n : Nat), motive n 1 → motive (Nat.succ n) 0)
(case3 : ∀ (n m : Nat), motive (n + 1) m → motive n (ackermann (n + 1) m) → motive (Nat.succ n) (Nat.succ m))
(x x : Nat) : motive x x
```
one gets
```
ackermann.fun_cases_unfolding
(motive : Nat → Nat → Nat → Prop)
(case1 : ∀ (m : Nat), motive 0 m (m + 1))
(case2 : ∀ (n : Nat), motive n.succ 0 (ackermann n 1))
(case3 : ∀ (n m : Nat), motive n.succ m.succ (ackermann n (ackermann (n + 1) m)))
(x✝ x✝¹ : Nat) : motive x✝ x✝¹ (ackermann x✝ x✝¹)
```
