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
`rewrite` tactic improvements
- Add support for `auto_param` and `opt_param`
- Order new goals using the same strategies available for `apply`
- Allow user to set configuration object in interactive mode.
@Armael This commit should address the issue you raised about the order
of new goals in the `rewrite` tactic.
See new test tests/lean/run/rw1.lean for examples.
@dselsam `simp` now supports lemmas containing metavariables.
The metavariables are automatically converted into tmp metavars.
The new test contains a few examples.
@dselsam The method `try_user_congr` was leaking a temporary
meta-variable into the formula. The problem in the congruence lemma
```
dif_ctx_simp_congr :
∀ {α : Sort u_1} {b c : Prop} [dec_b : decidable b] {x : b → α} {u : c → α} {y : ¬b → α} {v : ¬c → α}
(h_c : b ↔ c),
(∀ (h : c), x (h_c.mpr h) = u h) →
(∀ (h : ¬c), y ((not_iff_not_of_iff h_c).mpr h) = v h) → dite b x y = dite c u v
```
when the hypothesis `(∀ (h : c), x (h_c.mpr h) = u h)` is processed,
`h_c` is still unassigned. `h_c` was being assigned in a second
loop (the one that I deleted). Do you see any reason for having this
second pass? I think it is an optimization, we can skip the potentially
expensive
```
expr hyp = finalize(m_ctx, rel, r_congr_hyp).get_proof();
expr pf = local_factory.mk_lambda(hyp);
```
if the expression has not been simplified.
Anyway, I removed this code and merged both loops.
I don't think it should impact performance since we barely use custom
congruence lemmas.
Before this commit, simp would not silently apply refl-lemmas, and use
reflexivity. This strategy produces compact proofs but may generate
performance problems. For example, the new test timeouts without this
commit.
I believe a similar performance problem is affecting the Certigrad
project developed by @dselsam.
@kha I'm not sure if this is the right fix. I just avoided the loop that adds
`mk_expr_placeholder` if the function is not a projection.
I didn't spend time investigating why we need `mk_proj_app`.
I know the library doesn't compile if we don't use it, and just use
```
return mk_app(copy_tag(ref, mk_constant(S_name + fname)), e);
```
:)
