The `conv` tactic tries to close “trivial” goals after itself. As of
now, it uses
`try rfl`, which means it can close goals that are only trivial after
reducing with
default transparency. This is suboptimal
* this can require a fair amount of unfolding, and possibly slow down
the proof
a lot. And the user cannot even prevent it.
* it does not match what `rw` does, and a user might expect the two to
behave the
same.
So this PR changes it to `with_reducible rfl`, matching `rw`’s behavior.
I considered `with_reducible eq_refl` to only solve trivial goals that
involve equality,
but not other relations (e.g. `Perm xs xs`), but a discussion on mathlib
pointed out
that it’s expected and desirable to solve more general reflexive goals:
https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/270676-lean4/topic/Closing.20after.20.60rw.60.2C.20.60conv.60.3A.20.60eq_refl.60.20instead.20of.20.60rfl.60/near/429851605
Given a definition `foo`, they were previously called `foo._unfold`
until 4.7.0. We tried to rename them to `foo.def`, but it created too
many issues in the Mathlib repo. We decided to rename it again to
`foo.eq_def`. The new name is also consistent with the `eq_<idx>`
theorems generated for different "cases". That is, `foo.eq_def` is the
equality theorem for the whole definition, and `foo.eq_<idx>` is the
equality theorem for case `<idx>`.
cc @semorrison
When updating Std, be careful that not every lemma has been upstreamed,
so we need to be careful to only delete things that have already been
declared.
This change
* moves `termination_by` and `decreasing_by` next to the function they
apply to
* simplify the syntax of `termination_by`
* apply the `decreasing_by` goal to all goals at once, for better
interactive use.
See the section in `RELEASES.md` for more details and migration advise.
This is a hard breaking change, requiring developers to touch every
`termination_by` in their code base. We decided to still do it as a
hard-breaking change, because supporting both old and new syntax at the
same time would be non-trivial, and not save that much. Moreover, this
requires changes to some metaprograms that developers might have
written, and supporting both syntaxes at the same time would make
_their_ migration harder.
