This PR fixes an issue where `exact?` would not suggest private
declarations defined in the current module.
## Problem
When using `exact?` in a file with private declarations, those private
declarations were not being suggested even though they are valid and
accessible:
```lean
module
axiom P : Prop
private axiom p : P
example : P := by exact? -- error: could not find lemma
```
The problem was that `blacklistInsertion` in `LazyDiscrTree` was
filtering out all declarations whose names matched `isInternalDetail`,
which includes private names due to their `_private.Module.0.name`
structure.
## Solution
The fix adds a helper function `isPrivateNameOf` that checks if a
private declaration belongs to a specific module. The
`blacklistInsertion` function now allows private declarations belonging
to the current module (`env.header.mainModule`) to pass through the
filter.
Private declarations from imported modules are still filtered out, as
they may reference internal declarations that aren't accessible (which
would cause processing errors).
Zulip discussion:
https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/270676-lean4/topic/.60exact.3F.60.20and.20private.20declarations/near/564586152🤖 Prepared with Claude Code
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
This PR adds `solve_by_elim` as a fallback in the `try?` tactic's simple
tactics. When `rfl` and `assumption` both fail but `solve_by_elim`
succeeds (e.g., for goals requiring hypothesis chaining or
backtracking), `try?` will now suggest `solve_by_elim`.
The structure is `first | (attempt_all | rfl | assumption) |
solve_by_elim`, so `solve_by_elim` only runs when the faster tactics
fail.
This is a prerequisite for removing the "first pass" `solve_by_elim`
from `apply?`. Currently `apply?` calls `solve_by_elim` twice: once
before library search, and once after each lemma application. The first
pass can be removed once `try?` includes `solve_by_elim`.
🤖 Prepared with Claude Code
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
This PR enables parallelism in `try?`. Currently, we replace the
`attempt_all` stages (there are two, one for builtin tactics including
`grind` and `simp_all`, and a second one for all user extensions) with
parallel versions. We do not (yet?) change the behaviour of `first`
based stages.
