@Kha it now uses the same precedence of `fun`.
The main motivation is to allow us to write `@by { ... }` instead of
`@(by { ... })`.
BTW, I am considering disabling implicit lambdas for `by ...` expressions.
It is automatically "intro"ducing the implicit variables without
giving an opportunity for users to pick their names.
@Kha This is a first attempt to improve the error message for examples
like the one Andrew Kent posted on Zulip.
I created a simpler example using "vectors".
Given
```
inductive Foo
| mk₁ (x y z w : Nat)
| mk₂ (x y z w : Nat)
```
We can now write
```
def Foo.z : Foo → Nat
| mk₁ (z := z) .. => z
| mk₂ (z := z) .. => z
```
instead of
```
def Foo.z : Foo → Nat
| mk₁ _ _ z _ => z
| mk₂ _ _ z _ => z
```
cc @Kha
@Kha We currently have a few macros that create binder names
such as `x`. These macros rely on the hygienic framework. This part is
great. Before this commit we were simply erasing the macro
scopes when creating the actual binders at `Expr.lean`.
The result produced expressions that were hard to debug.
For example, consider the following scenario
1- Macro creates a few binder names using ``x <- `(x)``
2- We create a lambda expression `t` with these binder names.
3- Then, we use `lambdaTelescope t fun xs body => ...`
Now, if we trace `xs` and `body`, we get `#[x, x, ... x]` and
we can't distinguish the different `x`s in `body`.
So, it is really hard to debug anything using the traces.
This commit adds `Name.simpMacroScopes` for simplying "macro scoped"
names. Example: given `x._@.Init.Data.List.Basic._hyg.2.5`, it
produces `x.2.5`. I exported this function, and used it in the old
pretty printer.
I have considered modifying `lambdaTelescope` to make sure it creates
unused names. I think this option is bad because it introduces
overhead, and in a few places we want to preserve the binder names.
I have also considered replacing the `let x := x.eraseMacroScopes` at
`Expr.lean` with `let x := x.simpMacroScopes`. I think this option is
bad since we are destroying scoping information and will not be able
to distiguish which variables have macro scopes when processing
tactics.
Anyway, the solution in this commit is good for this week, but we
should discuss a more permanent solution next week.
