When using `set_option tactic.skipAssignedInstances false`, `simp` and
`rw` will synthesize instance implicit arguments even if they have
assigned by unification. If the synthesized argument does not match the
assigned one the rewrite is not performed. This option has been added
for backward compatibility.
Before the `zeta` / `zetaDelta` split, `dsimp` was performing `zeta`
by going inside of a `let`-expression, performing `zetaDelta`, and
then removing the unused `let`-expression.
Before this commit, `Simproc`s were defined as `Expr -> SimpM (Option Step)`, where `Step` is inductively defined as follows:
```
inductive Step where
| visit : Result → Step
| done : Result → Step
```
Here, `Result` is a structure containing the resulting expression and a proof demonstrating its equality to the input. Notably, the proof is optional; in its absence, `simp` assumes reflexivity.
A simproc can:
- Fail by returning `none`, indicating its inapplicability. In this case, the next suitable simproc is attempted, along with other simp extensions.
- Succeed and invoke further simplifications using the `.visit`
constructor. This action returns control to the beginning of the
simplification loop.
- Succeed and indicate that the result should not undergo further
simplifications. However, I find the current approach unsatisfactory, as it does not align with the methodology employed in `Transform.lean`, where we have the type:
```
inductive TransformStep where
/-- Return expression without visiting any subexpressions. -/
| done (e : Expr)
/--
Visit expression (which should be different from current expression) instead.
The new expression `e` is passed to `pre` again.
-/
| visit (e : Expr)
/--
Continue transformation with the given expression (defaults to current expression).
For `pre`, this means visiting the children of the expression.
For `post`, this is equivalent to returning `done`. -/
| continue (e? : Option Expr := none)
```
This type makes it clearer what is going on. The new `Simp.Step` type is similar but use `Result` instead of `Expr` because we need a proof.
Motivations:
- We can simplify the big mutual recursion and the implementation.
- We can implement the support for `match`-expressions in the `pre` method.
- It is easier to define and simplify `Simprocs`.
Switches from encoding `let_fun` using an annotated `(fun x : t => b) v`
expression to a function application `letFun v (fun x : t => b)`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Sebastian Ullrich <sebasti@nullri.ch>
