This PR adjusts the experimental module system to not export the bodies
of `def`s unless opted out by the new attribute `@[expose]` on the `def`
or on a surrounding `section`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Markus Himmel <markus@lean-fro.org>
This PR adds an initial set of `@[grind]` annotations for
`List`/`Array`/`Vector`, enough to set up some regression tests using
`grind` in proofs about `List`. More annotations to follow.
This PR moves away from using `List.get` / `List.get?` / `List.get!` and
`Array.get!`, in favour of using the `GetElem` mediated getters. In
particular it deprecates `List.get?`, `List.get!` and `Array.get?`. Also
adds `Array.back`, taking a proof, matching `List.getLast`.
This PR makes some proofs more robust so they will still work with
`byAsSorry`. Unfortunately, they are not a complete fix and there are
remaining problems building with `byAsSorry`.
This PR makes stricter requirements for the `@[deprecated]` attribute,
requiring either a replacement identifier as `@[deprecated bar]` or
suggestion text `@[deprecated "Past its use by date"]`, and also
requires a `since := "..."` field.
This PR changes the signature of `Array.get` to take a Nat and a proof,
rather than a `Fin`, for consistency with the rest of the (planned)
Array API. Note that because of bootstrapping issues we can't provide
`get_elem_tactic` as an autoparameter for the proof. As users will
mostly use the `xs[i]` notation provided by `GetElem`, this hopefully
isn't a problem.
We may restore `Fin` based versions, either here or downstream, as
needed, but they won't be the "main" functions.
---------
Co-authored-by: David Thrane Christiansen <david@davidchristiansen.dk>
The goal at the crucial step is
```
a : Array Nat
i : Fin ?m.27
⊢ ↑i < a.size
```
and after the `apply Fin.val_lt_of_le;` we have
```
a : Array Nat
i : Fin ?m.27
⊢ ?m.27 ≤ a.size
```
and now `apply Fin.val_lt_of_le` applies again, due to accidential
defeq. Adding `with_reducible` helps here.
fixes#5061
### Preliminary PRs:
- [x] #4597
- [x] #4599
- [x] #4600
- [x] #4602
- [x] #4603
- [x] #4604
- [x] #4605
- [x] #4607
- [x] #4627
- [x] #4629
### Quick overview over API/naming changes compared to `Lean.HashMap`
and `Batteries.HashMap`:
#### Lean
* `find?` -> `get?`/`getElem?`
* `find!` -> `get!`/`gtetElem!`
* `findD` -> `getD`
* `findEntry?` -> not implemented for now
* `insert'` -> `containsThenInsert` (order reversed in result)
* `insertIfNew` -> `getThenInsertIfNew?` (order reversed in result)
* `numBuckets` -> `Internal.numBuckets`
* `ofListWith` -> not implemented for now
* `Array.groupByKey` -> not implemented for now
* `merge` -> not implemented for now, but you can use `insertMany`
#### Batteries
* `modify` -> not implemented for now
* `mergeWith` -> not implemented for now
* `mergeWithM` -> not implemented for now
This makes changes to the `GetElem` class so that it does not lead to
unnecessary overhead in container like `RBMap`.
The changes are to:
1. Make `getElem?` and `getElem!` part of the `GetElem` class so they
can be overridden in instances.
2. Introduce a `LawfulGetElem` class that contains correctness theorems
for `getElem?` and `getElem!` using the original definitions.
3. Reorganize definitions (e.g, by moving `GetElem` out of
`Init.Prelude`) so that the `GetElem` changes are feasible.
4. Provide `LawfulGetElem` instances to complement all existing
`GetElem` instances in Lean core.
To reduce the size of the PR, this doesn't do the work of providing new
`GetElem` instances for `RBMap`, `HashMap` etc. That will be done in a
separate PR (#3688) that depends on this.
---------
Co-authored-by: Mac Malone <tydeu@hatpress.net>
