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.
When the type of a definition or example is a proposition,
we should elaborate on them as we elaborate on theorems.
This is particularly important for examples that are often
used in educational material.
Recall that when elaborating theorem headers, we convert unassigned
universe metavariables into universe parameters. The motivation is
that the proof of a theorem should not influence its statement.
However, before this commit, this was not the case for definitions and
examples when their type was a proposition. This discrepancy often
confused users.
Additionally, we considered extending the above behavior whenever
the type of a definition is provided. That is, we would keep the
current behavior only if `: <type>` was omitted in a definition.
However, this proved to be too restrictive.
For example, the following instance in `Core.lean` would fail:
```
instance {α : Sort u} [Setoid α] : HasEquiv α :=
⟨Setoid.r⟩
```
and we would have to write instead:
```
instance {α : Sort u} [Setoid α] : HasEquiv.{u, 0} α :=
⟨Setoid.r⟩
```
There are other failures like this in the core, and we assume many more
in Mathlib.
closes#4398
@semorrison @jcommelin: what do you think?
@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?
If the type error is at an implicit argument, we annotate
application with `pp.explicit := true`
Given the type incorrect definition
```
def f {a b c : α} : a = c :=
Eq.trans (a := a) (b := b = c)
```
We now generate the error
```
error: application type mismatch
@Eq.trans α a (b = c)
argument
b = c
has type
Prop
but is expected to have type
α
```
@Kha Note that we only enable `pp.explicit := true` for the relevant
application. That is, we set `pp.explicit := false` for each children.
Unfortunately, there is a corner case.
```
set_option pp.explicit true
def f {a b c : α} : a = c :=
Eq.trans (a := a) (b := b = c)
```
produces the error
```
error: application type mismatch
@Eq.trans α a (b = c)
argument
@Eq α b c
has type
Prop
but is expected to have type
α
```
The reset `pp.explicit := false` overwrote the user option.
I think the simplest solution is the following
1- The delaborator saves the initial set of Options `Init`
2- When it finds a node annotated with a `pp` options, it only
consider the option if it is not set by `Init`.
What do you think?
