This ports the `.below` and `.brecOn` constructions to lean.
I kept them in the same file, as they were in the C code, because they
are
highly coupled and the constructions are very analogous.
For validation I developed this in a separate repository at
https://github.com/nomeata/lean-constructions/tree/fad715e
and checked that all declarations found in Lean and Mathlib are
equivalent, up to
def canon (e : Expr) : CoreM Expr := do
Core.transform (← Core.betaReduce e) (pre := fun
| .const n ls => return .done (.const n (ls.map (·.normalize)))
| .sort l => return .done (.sort l.normalize)
| _ => return .continue)
It was not feasible to make them completely equal, because the kernel's
type inference code seem to optimize level expressions a bit less
aggressively, and beta-reduces less in inference.
The private helper functions about `PProd` can later move into their own
file, used by these constructions as well as the structural recursion
module.
Fixes some issues with the executable build and bad imports.
**Release notes:**
* A bad import in an executable no longer prevents the executable's root
module from being built., This also fixes a problem where the location
of a transitive bad import would not been shown.
* The root module of the executable now respects `nativeFacets`.
**Technical touchups:**
* Expanded and better documented `tests/badImport`.
* Use `ensureJob` in `recBuildDeps` to catch import errors instead of
individual `try ... catch` blocks.
Issue #4535 is being affected by a bug in the structural inductive
predicate termination checker (`IndPred.lean`). This module did not
exist in Lean 3, and it is buggy in Lean 4. In the given example, it
introduces an auxiliary declaration containing a `sorry`, and the fails.
This PR ensures this kind of declaration is not added to the
environment.
Closes#4535
TODO: we need a new maintainer for the `IndPred.lean`.
The `pp.maxSteps` option is a hard limit on the complexity of pretty
printer output, which is necessary to prevent the LSP from crashing when
there are accidental large terms. We're using the default value from the
corresponding Lean 3 option.
This PR also sets `pp.deepTerms` to `false` by default.
When the type of an `example` is a proposition,
we should elaborate on them as we elaborate on theorems.
This is particularly important for examples that are often
used in educational material.
Recall that when elaborating theorem headers, we convert unassigned
universe metavariables into universe parameters. The motivation is
that the proof of a theorem should not influence its statement.
However, before this commit, this was not the case for examples when
their type was a proposition.
This discrepancy often confused users.
Additionally, we considered extending the above behavior to definitions
when
1- When their type is a proposition. However, it still caused disruption
in Mathlib.
2- When their type is provided. That is, we would keep the current
behavior only if `: <type>` was omitted. This would make the elaborator
for `def` much closer to the one for `theorem`, but it proved to be too
restrictive.
For example, the following instance in `Core.lean` would fail:
```
instance {α : Sort u} [Setoid α] : HasEquiv α :=
⟨Setoid.r⟩
```
and we would have to write instead:
```
instance {α : Sort u} [Setoid α] : HasEquiv.{u, 0} α :=
⟨Setoid.r⟩
```
There are other failures like this in the core, and we assume many more
in Mathlib.
closes#4398closes#4482 Remark: PR #4482 implements option 1 above. We may consider
it again in the future.
We add a new definition `BitVec.twoPow w i` to represent `(1#w <<< i)`.
This expression is used to test bits when building the multiplication
bitblaster.
Patch 1/?, being peeled from https://github.com/opencompl/lean4/pull/6.
---------
Co-authored-by: Tobias Grosser <github@grosser.es>
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>
this is the simplest of the constructions to be ported from C++ to Lean,
so I’ll PR this one first.
This begins to put each construction into its own file, as it was the
case with C++.
For validation I developed this in a separate repository at
https://github.com/nomeata/lean-constructions/tree/fad715e
and checked that all `.recOn` declarations found in Lean and Mathlib are
identical (per `==`) to the ones produced by the C code.
Fixes a bug where Lake incorrectly included the module dynlib in a
platform-independent trace. It was incorrectly excluded only external
native libraries from the trace. Also adds a test.
as #4527 describes there is inconsistency between `by`, `case` and
`next` on the one hand who, if the goal isn’t closed, put squiggly
underlines on the first line, and `.`, which so far only squiggled the
dot (which is a very short symbol!)
With this change the same mechanism as used by `case`, namely
`withCaseRef`, is also used for `.`.
There is an argument for the status quo: The `.` tactic is more commonly
used
with further tactics on the same line, and thus there is now a higher
risk that
the user might think that the first tactic is broken. But
* the same argument does apply to `by` and `case` where there was an
intentional
choice to do it this way
* consistency and
* a squiggly line just under the short `.` is easy to miss, so it is
actually
better to underlining more here (at least until we have a better way to
indicate incomplete proofs, which I have hopes for)
Fixes#4527, at least most of it.
This is the groundwork for a tactic index in generated documentation, as
there was in Lean 3. There are a few challenges to getting this to work
well in Lean 4:
* There's no natural notion of *tactic identity* - a tactic may be
specified by multiple syntax rules (e.g. the pattern-matching version of
`intro` is specified apart from the default version, but both are the
same from a user perspective)
* There's no natural notion of *tactic name* - here, we take the
pragmatic choice of using the first keyword atom in the tactic's syntax
specification, but this may need to be overridable someday.
* Tactics are extensible, but we don't want to allow arbitrary imports
to clobber existing tactic docstrings, which could become unpredictable
in practice.
For tactic identity, this PR introduces the notion of a *tactic
alternative*, which is a `syntax` specification that is really "the same
as" an existing tactic, but needs to be separate for technical reasons.
This provides a notion of tactic identity, which we can use as the basis
of a tactic index in generated documentation. Alternative forms of
tactics are specified using a new `@[tactic_alt IDENT]` attribute,
applied to the new tactic syntax. It is an error to declare a tactic
syntax rule to be an alternative of another one that is itself an
alternative. Documentation hovers now take alternatives into account,
and display the docs for the canonical name.
*Tactic tags*, created with the `register_tactic_tag` command, specify
tags that may be applied to tactics. This is intended to be used by
doc-gen and Verso. Tags may be applied using the `@[tactic_tag TAG1 TAG2
...]` attribute on a canonical tactic parser, which may be used in any
module to facilitate downstream projects introducing tags that apply to
pre-existing tactics. Tags may not be removed, but it's fine to
redundantly add them. The collection of tags, and the tactics to which
they're applied, can be seen using the `#print tactic tags` command.
*Extension documentation* provides a structured way to document
extensions to tactics. The resulting documentation is gathered into a
bulleted list at the bottom of the tactic's docstring. Extensions are
added using the `tactic_extension TAC` command. This can be used when
adding new interpretations of a tactic via `macro_rules`, when extending
some table or search index used by the tactic, or in any other way. It
is a command to facilitate its flexible use with various extension
mechanisms.
Describes the intended modes of use, potential performance tradeoffs,
and data representation in more detail.
---------
Co-authored-by: Sebastian Ullrich <sebasti@nullri.ch>
Co-authored-by: Mac Malone <tydeu@hatpress.net>
The recent change of the trace format exposed some unexpected issues
with Lake's tracing handling. This aims to fix that.
Lake will now perform a rebuild if the trace file is invalid/unreadable.
However, it will still fall back to modification times if the trace file
is missing. Also, Lake is now backwards compatible with the previous
pure numeric traces (and tolerates the absence of a `log` field in the
JSON trace).
This PR introduces complete simprocs for all the Int versions of
div/mod, and makes some small refactoring of Int lemmas and
library_search.
---------
Co-authored-by: Kim Morrison <kim@tqft.net>
#3850 included a commit that added an extra test for `exact?`, but was
otherwise unrelated the to PR. It also removed a test. I've
cherry-picked that test over, and restored the deleted test, and next
will remove the commit from #3850.
The linters in Batteries can be used to spot mistakes in Lean. See the
message on
[Zulip](https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/270676-lean4/topic/Go-to-def.20on.20typeclass.20fields.20and.20type-dependent.20notation/near/442613564).
These are the different linters with errors:
- unusedArguments:
There are many unused instance arguments, especially a redundant `[Monad
m]` is very common
- checkUnivs:
There was a problem with universes in a definition in
`Init.Control.StateCps`. I fixed it by adding a `variable` statement for
the implicit arguments in the file.
- defLemma:
many proofs are written as `def` instead of `theorem`, most notably
`rfl`. Because `rfl` is used as a match pattern, it must be a def. Is
this desirable?
The keyword `abbrev` is sometimes used for an alias of a theorem, which
also results in a def. I would want to replace it with the `alias`
keyword to fix this, but it isn't available.
- dupNamespace:
I fixed some of these, but left `Tactic.Tactic` and `Parser.Parser` as
they are as these seem intended.
- unusedHaveSuffices:
I cleaned up a few proofs with unused `have` or `suffices`
- explicitVarsOfIff:
I didn't fix any of these, because that would be a breaking change.
- simpNF:
I didn't fix any of these, because I think that requires knowing the
intended simplification order.
