This PR refines the new wording of the "application type mismatch" error
message to avoid ambiguity in references to the "final" argument in a
subexpression that may be followed by additional arguments.
It does so by replacing "final" with "last," rephrasing the message so
that this adjective modifies the argument itself rather than the word
"argument," and only displaying this wording when two arguments could be
confused (determined by expression equality).
These changes were motivated by a report that in cases where a function
application `f a b c` fails to elaborate because `b` is incorrectly
typed, the existing error message's reference to `b` being the "final"
argument in the application `f a b` may create confusion because it is
not the final argument in the full application expression.
This PR rewords the `application type mismatch` error message by more
specifically mentioning that the problem is with the final argument.
This is useful when the same argument is passed to the function multiple
times.
We decided against using a wording which specifically mentions the
"function expression", because users who are not used to currying might
not think of the `f a` in `f a b` as a function.
This PR fixes a bug where the monad lift coercion elaborator would
partially unify expressions even if they were not monads. This could be
taken advantage of to propagate information that could help elaboration
make progress, for example the first `change` worked because the monad
lift coercion elaborator was unifying `@Eq _ _` with `@Eq (Nat × Nat)
p`:
```lean
example (p : Nat × Nat) : p = p := by
change _ = ⟨_, _⟩ -- used to work (yielding `p = (p.fst, p.snd)`), now it doesn't
change ⟨_, _⟩ = _ -- never worked
```
As such, this is a breaking change; you may need to adjust expressions
to include additional implicit arguments.
Type mismatch errors have a nice feature where expressions are annotated
with `pp.explicit` to expose differences via `isDefEq` checking.
However, this procedure has side effects since `isDefEq` may assign
metavariables. This PR wraps the procedure with `withoutModifyingState`
to prevent assignments from escaping.
Assignments can lead to confusing behavior. For example, in the
following a higher-order unification fails, but the difference-finding
procedure unifies metavariables in a naive way, producing a baffling
error message:
```lean
theorem test {f g : Nat → Nat} (n : Nat) (hfg : ∀a, f (g a) = a) :
f (g n) = n := hfg n
example {g2 : ℕ → ℕ} (n2 : ℕ) : (λx => x * 2) (g2 n2) = n2 := by
with_reducible refine test n2 ?_
/-
type mismatch
test n2 ?m.648
has type
(fun x ↦ x * 2) (g2 n2) = n2 : Prop
but is expected to have type
(fun x ↦ x * 2) (g2 n2) = n2 : Prop
-/
```
With the change, it now says `has type ?m.153 (?m.154 n2) = n2`.
Note: this uses `withoutModifyingState` instead of `withNewMCtxDepth`
because we want to know something about where `isDefEq` failed — we are
trying to simulate a very basic version of `isDefEq` for function
applications, and we want the state at the point of failure to know
which argument is "at fault".
