When the type of an `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 examples when
their type was a proposition.
This discrepancy often confused users.
Additionally, we considered extending the above behavior to definitions
when
1- When their type is a proposition. However, it still caused disruption
in Mathlib.
2- When their type is provided. That is, we would keep the current
behavior only if `: <type>` was omitted. This would make the elaborator
for `def` much closer to the one for `theorem`, but it 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#4398closes#4482 Remark: PR #4482 implements option 1 above. We may consider
it again in the future.
By having the `pp.proofs` feature use `⋯` when omitting proofs, when
users copy/paste terms from the InfoView the elaborator can give an
error message explaining why the term cannot be elaborated.
Also adds `pp.proofs.threshold` option to allow users to pretty print
shallow proof terms. By default, only atomic proof terms are pretty
printed.
This adjustment was suggested in PR #3201, which added `⋯` and the
related `pp.deepTerms` option.
