Commit graph

2 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Joachim Breitner
f30ff6ae79
refactor: put new eqns options into backward namespace (#5207)
in #4154 and #5129 the rules for equational lemmas have changed, and new
options were introduced that can be used to revert to the pre-4.12
behavior. Hopefully nobody really needs these options besides for
backwards compatibility, therefore we put these options in the
`backward` option name space.

So the previous behavior can be achieved by setting
```lean
set_option backward.eqns.nonrecursive false
set_option backward.eqns.deepRecursiveSplit false
```
2024-08-29 17:03:51 +00:00
Joachim Breitner
d975e4302e
feat: fine-grained equational lemmas for non-recursive functions (#4154)
This is part of #3983.

Fine-grained equational lemmas are useful even for non-recursive
functions, so this adds them.

The new option `eqns.nonrecursive` can be set to `false` to have the old
behavior.

### Breaking channge

This is a breaking change: Previously, `rw [Option.map]` would rewrite
`Option.map f o` to `match o with … `. Now this rewrite will fail
because the equational lemmas require constructors here (like they do
for, say, `List.map`).

Remedies:

 * Split on `o` before rewriting.
* Use `rw [Option.map.eq_def]`, which rewrites any (saturated)
application of `Option.map`
* Use `set_option eqns.nonrecursive false` when *defining* the function
in question.

### Interaction with simp

The `simp` tactic so far had a special provision for non-recursive
functions so that `simp [f]` will try to use the equational lemmas, but
will also unfold `f` else, so less breakage here (but maybe performance
improvements with functions with many cases when applied to a
constructor, as the simplifier will no longer unfold to a large
`match`-statement and then collapse it right away).

For projection functions and functions marked `[reducible]`, `simp [f]`
won’t use the equational theorems, and will only use its internal
unfolding machinery.

### Implementation notes

It uses the same `mkEqnTypes` function as for recursive functions, so we
are close to a consistency here. There is still the wrinkle that for
recursive functions we don't split matches without an interesting
recursive call inside. Unifying that is future work.
2024-08-22 13:26:58 +00:00