building upon #3714, this (almost) implements the second half of #3302.
The main effect is that we now get a better error message when `rfl`
fails. For
```lean
example : n+1+m = n + (1+m) := by rfl
```
instead of the wall of text
```
The rfl tactic failed. Possible reasons:
- The goal is not a reflexive relation (neither `=` nor a relation with a @[refl] lemma).
- The arguments of the relation are not equal.
Try using the reflexivity lemma for your relation explicitly, e.g. `exact Eq.refl _` or
`exact HEq.rfl` etc.
n m : Nat
⊢ n + 1 + m = n + (1 + m)
```
we now get
```
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
n + 1 + m
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
n + (1 + m)
n m : Nat
⊢ n + 1 + m = n + (1 + m)
```
Unfortunately, because of very subtle differences in semantics (which
transparency setting is used when reducing the goal and whether the
“implicit lambda” feature applies) I could not make this simply the only
`rfl` implementation. So `rfl` remains a macro and is still expanded to
`eq_refl` (difference transparency setting) and `exact Iff.rfl` and
`exact HEq.rfl` (implicit lambda) to not break existing code. This can
be revised later, so this still closes: #3302.
A user might still be puzzled *why* to terms are not defeq. Explaining
that better (“reduced to… and reduces to… etc.”) would also be great,
but that’s not specific to `rfl`, so better left for some other time.
Fixes typo "reflexivitiy" to "reflexivity", and changes exact Eq.rfl to
exact rfl, since Eq.rfl does not exist.
(I got something confused wrt the bot message on #4367 and accidentally
closed that one, so making this one instead, which I think satisfies the
requirements it wanted.)
---------
Co-authored-by: Joachim Breitner <mail@joachim-breitner.de>
fixes#3770
Also start `rfl` with a `fail` message that is hopefully more helpful
than what we get now (see updated test output). This would be a cheaper
way to address #3302 without changing the implementation of rfl (as
tried in #3714).
