This PR improves the “expected type mismatch” error message by omitting
the type's types when they are defeq, and putting them into separate
lines when not.
I found it rather tediuos to parse the error message when the expected
type is long, because I had to find the `:` in the middle of a large
expression somewhere. Also, when both are of sort `Prop` or `Type` it
doesn't add much value to print the sort (and it’s only one hover away
anyways).
This PR refines the new wording of the "application type mismatch" error
message to avoid ambiguity in references to the "final" argument in a
subexpression that may be followed by additional arguments.
It does so by replacing "final" with "last," rephrasing the message so
that this adjective modifies the argument itself rather than the word
"argument," and only displaying this wording when two arguments could be
confused (determined by expression equality).
These changes were motivated by a report that in cases where a function
application `f a b c` fails to elaborate because `b` is incorrectly
typed, the existing error message's reference to `b` being the "final"
argument in the application `f a b` may create confusion because it is
not the final argument in the full application expression.
This PR rewords the `application type mismatch` error message by more
specifically mentioning that the problem is with the final argument.
This is useful when the same argument is passed to the function multiple
times.
We decided against using a wording which specifically mentions the
"function expression", because users who are not used to currying might
not think of the `f a` in `f a b` as a function.
Sets the default value to `pp.fieldNotation.generalized` to `true`.
Updates tests, and fixes some minor flaws in the implementation of the
generalized field notation pretty printer.
Now generalized field notation won't be used for any function that has a
`motive` argument. This is intended to prevent recursors from pretty
printing using it as (1) recursors are more like control flow structures
than actual functions and (2) generalized field notation tends to cause
elaboration problems for recursors.
Note: be sure functions that have an `@[app_unexpander]` use
`@[pp_nodot]` if applicable. For example, `List.toArray` needs
`@[pp_nodot]` to ensure the unexpander prints it using `#[...]`
notation.
@Kha we do that in Lean 3. It helps when the error is due to incorrect universe levels.
BTW, I had to update `tests/lean/server/content_diag.json` since the
error message is different, but a few other stuff changed too.
Could you please take a look whether the test is still correct?
After this commit, we have to use an explicit `discard` in code such as
```
def g (x : Nat) : IO Nat := ...
def f (x : Nat) : IO Unit := do
discard <| g x -- type error without the `discard`
IO.println x
```
Motivation: prevent users from making mistakes such as
```
def f (xs : Array Nat) : IO Unit := do
xs.set! 0 1
IO.println xs
```
when they meant to write
```
def f (xs : Array Nat) : IO Unit := do
let xs := xs.set! 0 1
IO.println xs
```
