Fixes a workflow bug where the `check-level` was not always set
correctly. Arguments to a `gh` call used to determine the `check_level`
were accidentally outside of the relevant command substitution (`$(gh
...)`).
-----
This can be observed in [these
logs](https://github.com/leanprover/lean4/actions/runs/10859763037/job/30139540920),
where the check level (shown first under "configure build matrix") is
`2`, but the PR does not have the `release-ci` tag. As a "test", run the
script for "set check level" printed in those logs (with some lines
omitted):
```
check_level=0
labels="$(gh api repos/leanprover/lean4/pulls/5343) --jq '.labels'"
if echo "$labels" | grep -q "release-ci"; then
check_level=2
elif echo "$labels" | grep -q "merge-ci"; then
check_level=1
fi
echo "check_level=$check_level"
```
Note that this prints `check_level=2`, but changing `labels` to
`labels="$(gh api repos/leanprover/lean4/pulls/5343 --jq '.labels')"`
prints `check_level=0`.
This PR fixes an issue reported a while ago at
https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/270676-lean4/topic/.60Monad.2Emap.60.20is.20a.20namespace.3F/near/425662846
where `Monad.map` was incorrectly reported by the autocompletion as a
namespace.
The underlying issue is that `Monad.map` contains an internal
declaration `_default`. This PR ensures that no namespaces are
registered that only contain internal declarations.
This also means that `open`ing namespaces that only contain internal
declarations will now fail.
The Mathlib adaption for this is a minor change where a declaration
(i.e. a namespace that only contains internal declarations) was `open`ed
by accident.
This solves the issue where certain subexpressions are lacking syntax
hovers because the hover text is not "builtin" - it only shows up if the
`Parser` constant is imported in the environment. For top level syntaxes
this is not a problem because `builtin_term_parser` will automatically
add this doc information, but nested syntaxes don't get the same
treatment.
We could walk the expression and add builtin docs recursively, but this
is somewhat expensive and unnecessary given that it's a fixed list of
declarations in lean core. Moreover, there are reasons to want to
control which syntax nodes actually get hovers, and while a better
system for that is forthcoming, for now it can be achieved by
strategically not applying the `@[builtin_doc]` attribute.
Fixes#3842
When the elaborator doesn't provide us with any `CompletionInfo`, we
currently provide no completions whatsoever. But in many cases, we can
still provide some helpful identifier completions without elaborator
information. This PR adds a fallback mode for this situation.
There is more potential here, but this should be a good start.
In principle, this issue alleviates #5172 (since we now provide
completions in these contexts). I'll leave it up to an elaboration
maintainer whether we also want to ensure that the completion infos are
provided correctly in these cases.
This adds a simplification lemma for `(x - y).toNat` when the
subtraction is known to not overflow (i.e., `y ≤ x`).
We make a new section for this for two reasons:
1. Definitions of subtraction occur before the definition of
`BitVec.le_def`, so we cannot directly place this lemma at `sub`.
2. There are other theorems of this kind, for addition and
multiplication, which can morally live in the same section.
The theorem
```lean
namespace Int
theorem ediv_nonneg_of_nonpos_of_nonpos {a b : Int} (Ha : a ≤ 0) (Hb : b ≤ 0) : 0 ≤ a / b := by
match a, b with
| ofNat a, b =>
match Int.le_antisymm Ha (ofNat_zero_le a) with
| h1 =>
rw [h1, zero_ediv,]
exact Int.le_refl 0
| a, ofNat b =>
match Int.le_antisymm Hb (ofNat_zero_le b) with
| h1 =>
rw [h1, Int.ediv_zero]
exact Int.le_refl 0
| negSucc a, negSucc b =>
rw [Int.div_def, ediv]
have le_succ {a: Int} : a ≤ a+1 := (le_add_one (Int.le_refl a))
have h2: 0 ≤ ((↑b:Int) + 1) := Int.le_trans (ofNat_zero_le b) le_succ
have h3: (0:Int) ≤ ↑a / (↑b + 1) := (ediv_nonneg (ofNat_zero_le a) h2)
exact Int.le_trans h3 le_succ
```
is nontrivial to prove from existing theorems and would be nice to add
as standard theorem in DivModLemmas.
See the zullip conversation
[here](https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/113488-general/topic/Adding.20theorem.20theorem.20ediv_nonneg'.20for.20negative.20a.20and.20b)
---------
Co-authored-by: Kim Morrison <kim@tqft.net>
From the new doc-string:
```quote
In early versions of Lean, the typeclasses provided by `/` and `%`
were defined in terms of `tdiv` and `tmod`, and these were named simply as `div` and `mod`.
However we decided it was better to use `ediv` and `emod`,
as they are consistent with the conventions used in SMTLib, Mathlib,
and often mathematical reasoning is easier with these conventions.
At that time, we did not rename `div` and `mod` to `tdiv` and `tmod` (along with all their lemma).
In September 2024, we decided to do this rename (with deprecations in place),
and later we intend to rename `ediv` and `emod` to `div` and `mod`, as nearly all users will only
ever need to use these functions and their associated lemmas.
```
Proves that `<` and `<=` on `BitVec` are (strict) (total) partial
orders. This is required for the `UInt` as `BitVec` refactor.
This does open the question how to state these theorems "correctly" for
`BitVec`, we have both `<` living in `Prop` and `BitVec.ult` living in
`Bool`. We might of course say to always use `<` but: Once we start
adding `IntX` we need to prove the same results for `BitVec.slt` to
provide an equivalent API. So it would appear that it is unavoidable to
have a `= true` variant of these theorems there?
Question answered: Use `<` and `slt`.
Refactors the derive handlers for `ToJson` and `FromJson` in preparation
for #3160.
This splits up the different parts of the handler according to how other
similar handlers are implemented while keeping the original logic
intact. This makes the changes necessary to adapt the file in #3160 much
easier.
Fixes#4455, fixes#4705, fixes#5219
Also fixes a minor bug where a dot in brackets would report incorrect
completions instead of no completions.
---------
Co-authored-by: Sebastian Ullrich <sebasti@nullri.ch>
I found that the kernel has special support for `e =?= true`, and will
in this case aggressively whnf `e`. This explains the following behavior
(for a `sqrt` function with fuel):
```lean
theorem foo : sqrt 100000000000000000002 == 10000000000 := rfl -- fast
theorem foo : sqrt 100000000000000000002 = 10000000000 := rfl -- slow
theorem foo : sqrt 100000000000000000002 = 10000000000 := by decide -- fast
```
The special support in the kernel only applies for closed `e` and `true`
on the RHS. It could be generlized (also open terms, also `false`, other
data type's constructors, different orientation). But maybe I should
wait for evidence that this generaziation really matters, or whether
all applications (proof by reflection) can be made to have this form.
