From the new doc-string:
```quote
In early versions of Lean, the typeclasses provided by `/` and `%`
were defined in terms of `tdiv` and `tmod`, and these were named simply as `div` and `mod`.
However we decided it was better to use `ediv` and `emod`,
as they are consistent with the conventions used in SMTLib, Mathlib,
and often mathematical reasoning is easier with these conventions.
At that time, we did not rename `div` and `mod` to `tdiv` and `tmod` (along with all their lemma).
In September 2024, we decided to do this rename (with deprecations in place),
and later we intend to rename `ediv` and `emod` to `div` and `mod`, as nearly all users will only
ever need to use these functions and their associated lemmas.
```
Proves that `<` and `<=` on `BitVec` are (strict) (total) partial
orders. This is required for the `UInt` as `BitVec` refactor.
This does open the question how to state these theorems "correctly" for
`BitVec`, we have both `<` living in `Prop` and `BitVec.ult` living in
`Bool`. We might of course say to always use `<` but: Once we start
adding `IntX` we need to prove the same results for `BitVec.slt` to
provide an equivalent API. So it would appear that it is unavoidable to
have a `= true` variant of these theorems there?
Question answered: Use `<` and `slt`.
This is "upstreaming" mathlib's `unfold_let` tactic by incorporating its
functionality into `unfold`. Now `unfold` can, in addition to unfolding
global definitions, unfold local definitions. The PR also updates the
`conv` version of the tactic.
An improvement over `unfold_let` is that it beta reduces unfolded local
functions.
Two features not present in `unfold` are that (1) `unfold_let` with no
arguments does zeta delta reduction of *all* local definitions, and also
(2) `unfold_let` can interleave unfoldings (in contrast, `unfold a b c`
is exactly the same as `unfold a; unfold b; unfold c`).
Closes RFC #4090
I don't think we gain anything from having them as `abbrev` here, and
the simpNF linter complains:
```
-- Init.Data.BitVec.Lemmas
#check @BitVec.toNat_intMin /- simp can prove this:
by simp only [BitVec.toNat_twoPow]
One of the lemmas above could be a duplicate.
If that's not the case try reordering lemmas or adding @[priority].
-/
#check @BitVec.toNat_intMax /- Left-hand side simplifies from
(BitVec.intMax w).toNat
to
(2 ^ w - 1 % 2 ^ w + 2 ^ (w - 1)) % 2 ^ w
using
simp only [@BitVec.toNat_sub, @BitVec.ofNat_eq_ofNat, BitVec.toNat_ofNat, BitVec.toNat_twoPow, Nat.add_mod_mod]
Try to change the left-hand side to the simplified term!
-/
```
```
#lint only simpNF in all
```
reports (amongst others):
```
-- Init.Data.Int.Order
#check @Int.toNat_of_nonneg /- Left-hand side simplifies from
↑a.toNat
to
max a 0
using
simp only [Int.ofNat_toNat]
Try to change the left-hand side to the simplified term!
-/
#check Int.toNat_sub_toNat_neg /- Left-hand side simplifies from
↑n.toNat - ↑(-n).toNat
to
max n 0 - max (-n) 0
using
simp only [Int.ofNat_toNat]
Try to change the left-hand side to the simplified term!
-/
```
This doesn't completely resolve the danger (only relevant in `prelude`
files) of importing `Init.Data.List.Basic` but not `Init.Data.List.Impl`
and thereby not having `@[csimp]` lemmas installed for some list
operations.
I'm going to address this better while working on `Array`.
