Reason: vector in in init folder was introducing an overload (`::`) for
all Lean users. The workaround (use `local infix ::`) was
counterintuitive.
We currently have no special support for bitvectors in the code
generator. Thus, there is no need to have vector and bitvec in the init
folder right now. Moreover, the new parser and elaborator (issue #1674) should
provide better ways of managing overloaded symbols.
Now tactics supporting locations can also specify the goal among the locations by using the name `⊢` or `|-`. Also `rw at *` is implemented so that it will rewrite any hypotheses or the goal for which the whole sequence of rewrites succeeds. (This is different from `rw at h1 h2 ... hn |-`, which requires that all rewrites run to completion on each specified target.)
@digama0 I moved bitvec back to the main repo, and many nat lemmas.
I want these lemmas here for now. I will need some of them for future
decision procedures.
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.
