Because of the last-added-tried-first rule for macros, all the special
purpose `decreasing_trivial` rules are tried for most recursive
definitions out there, and because they use `apply` and `assumption`
with default transparency may cause some definitoins to be unfolded over
and over again.
A quick test with one of the functions in the leansat project shows that
elaboration time goes down from 600ms to 375ms when using
```
decreasing_by all_goals decreasing_with with_reducible decreasing_trivial
```
instead of
```
decreasing_by all_goals decreasing_with decreasing_trivial
```
This change uses `with_reducible` in most of these macros.
This means that these tactics will no longer work when the
relations/definitions they look for is hidden behind a definition.
This affected in particular `Array.sizeOf_get`, which now has a
companion `sizeOf_getElem`.
In addition, there were three tactics using `apply` to apply Nat-related
lemmas
that we now expect `omega` to solve. We still need them when building
`Init` modules
that don’t have access to `omega`, but they now live in
`decreasing_trivial_pre_omega`,
meant to be only used internally.
The notation `a ∈ as` for Arrays was previously only defined with
`DecidableEq` on the elements, for (apparently) no good reason. This
drops this requirements (by using `a ∈ as.data`), and simplifies a bunch
of proofs by simply lifting the corresponding proof from lists.
Also, `sizeOf_lt_of_mem` was defined, but not set up to be picked up by
`decreasing_trivial` in the same way that the corresponding List lemma
was set up, so this adds the tactic setup.
The definition for `a ∈ as` is intentionally not defeq to `a ∈ as.data`
so that the termination tactics for Arrays don’t spuriously apply when
recursing through lists.
