This is part of #3983.
Fine-grained equational lemmas are useful even for non-recursive
functions, so this adds them.
The new option `eqns.nonrecursive` can be set to `false` to have the old
behavior.
### Breaking channge
This is a breaking change: Previously, `rw [Option.map]` would rewrite
`Option.map f o` to `match o with … `. Now this rewrite will fail
because the equational lemmas require constructors here (like they do
for, say, `List.map`).
Remedies:
* Split on `o` before rewriting.
* Use `rw [Option.map.eq_def]`, which rewrites any (saturated)
application of `Option.map`
* Use `set_option eqns.nonrecursive false` when *defining* the function
in question.
### Interaction with simp
The `simp` tactic so far had a special provision for non-recursive
functions so that `simp [f]` will try to use the equational lemmas, but
will also unfold `f` else, so less breakage here (but maybe performance
improvements with functions with many cases when applied to a
constructor, as the simplifier will no longer unfold to a large
`match`-statement and then collapse it right away).
For projection functions and functions marked `[reducible]`, `simp [f]`
won’t use the equational theorems, and will only use its internal
unfolding machinery.
### Implementation notes
It uses the same `mkEqnTypes` function as for recursive functions, so we
are close to a consistency here. There is still the wrinkle that for
recursive functions we don't split matches without an interesting
recursive call inside. Unifying that is future work.
Many of our tests in `tests/lean/run/` produce output from `#eval` (or
`#check`) statements, that is then ignored.
This PR tries to capture all the useful output using `#guard_msgs`. I've
only done a cursory check that the output is still sane --- there is a
chance that some "unchecked" tests have already accumulated regressions
and this just cements them!
In the other direction, I did identify two rotten tests:
* a minor one in `setStructInstNotation.lean`, where a comment says `Set
Nat`, but `#check` actually prints `?_`. Weird?
* `CompilerProbe.lean` is generating empty output, apparently indicating
that something is broken, but I don't know the signficance of this file.
In any case, I'll ask about these elsewhere.
(This started by noticing that a recent `grind` test file had an
untested `trace_state`, and then got carried away.)
