This PR modifies structure instance notation and `where` notation to use
the same notation for fields. Structure instance notation now admits
binders, type ascriptions, and equations, and `where` notation admits
full structure lvals. Examples of these for structure instance notation:
```lean
structure PosFun where
f : Nat → Nat
pos : ∀ n, 0 < f n
def p : PosFun :=
{ f n := n + 1
pos := by simp }
def p' : PosFun :=
{ f | 0 => 1
| n + 1 => n + 1
pos := by rintro (_|_) <;> simp }
```
Just like for the structure `where` notation, a field `f x y z : ty :=
val` expands to `f := fun x y z => (val : ty)`. The type ascription is
optional.
The PR also is setting things up for future expansion. Pending some
discussion, in the future structure/`where` notation could have have
embedded `where` clauses; rather than `{ a := { x := 1, y := z } }` one
could write `{ a where x := 1; y := z }`.
Following up #5928, updates the syntax for `omega` and `solve_by_elim`
and restores the syntax quotations in their implementations.
Following up #5898, uses the new tactic syntax in the library, replacing
all uses of `(config := ...)`.
As far as I can tell, the ability to pass a structure instance to a
deriving handler is not actually used in practice. It didn't seem to be
used in the test suite, at least.
Do we want to remove this, or do we want to use and document it? This PR
removes it, but that's not something I feel strongly about - but seeing
if it breaks Mathlib is a useful data point.
PR #5883 added a new syntax for tactic configuration, and this PR
enables it in most tactics. Example: `simp +contextual`.
There will be followup PRs to modify the remaining ones.
Breaking change: Tactics that are macros for `simp` or other core
tactics need to adapt. The easiest way is to replace `(config)?` with
`optConfig` and then in the syntax quotations replace `$[$cfg]?` by
`$cfg:optConfig`. For tactics that manipulate the configuration, see
`erw` for an example:
```lean
macro "erw" c:optConfig s:rwRuleSeq loc:(location)? : tactic => do
`(tactic| rw $[$(getConfigItems c)]* (transparency := .default) $s:rwRuleSeq $(loc)?)
```
Configuration options are processed left-to-right, so this forces the
`transparency` to always be `.default`.
This adds the ability to add the converse direction of a rewrite rule
not just in simp arguments `simp [← thm]`, but also as a global
attribute
```lean
attribute [simp ←] thm
```
This fixes#5828.
This can be undone with `attribute [-simp]`, although note that
`[-simp]` wins and cannot be undone at the moment (#5868).
Like `simp [← thm]` (see #4290), this will do an implicit `attribute
[-simp] thm` if the other direction is already defined.
when the transparency mode is `.all`, then one expects `getFunInfo` and
`inferType` to also work with that transparency mode.
Fixes#5562Fixes#2975Fixes#2194
This implements the first half of #3302: It improves the extensible
`apply_rfl` tactic (the one that looks at `refl` attributes, part of
the `rfl` macro) to
* Check itself and ahead of time that the lhs and rhs are defEq, and
give
a nice consistent error message when they don't (instead of just passing
on
the less helpful error message from `apply Foo.refl`), and using the
machinery that `apply` uses to elaborate expressions to highlight diffs
in implicit arguments.
* Also handle `Eq` and `HEq` (built in) and `Iff` (using the attribute)
Care is taken that, as before, the current transparency setting affects
comparing the lhs and rhs, but not the reduction of the relation
So before we had
```lean
opaque P : Nat → Nat → Prop
@[refl] axiom P.refl (n : Nat) : P n n
/--
error: tactic 'apply' failed, failed to unify
P ?n ?n
with
P 42 23
⊢ P 42 23
-/
#guard_msgs in
example : P 42 23 := by apply_rfl
opaque withImplicitNat {n : Nat} : Nat
/--
error: tactic 'apply' failed, failed to unify
P ?n ?n
with
P withImplicitNat withImplicitNat
⊢ P withImplicitNat withImplicitNat
-/
#guard_msgs in
example : P (@withImplicitNat 42) (@withImplicitNat 23) := by apply_rfl
```
and with this PR the messages we get are
```
error: tactic 'apply_rfl' failed, The lhs
42
is not definitionally equal to rhs
23
⊢ P 42 23
```
resp.
```
error: tactic 'apply_rfl' failed, The lhs
@withImplicitNat 42
is not definitionally equal to rhs
@withImplicitNat 23
⊢ P withImplicitNat withImplicitNat
```
A test file checks the various failure modes and error messages.
I believe this `apply_rfl` can serve as the only implementation of
`rfl`, which would then complete #3302, and actually expose these
improved
error messages to the user. But as that seems to require a
non-trivial bootstrapping dance, it’ll be separate.
in principle we'd like to use the existing parser
```
"?" >> (ident <|> hole)
```
but somehow annotate it so that hovering the `hole` will not show the
hole's hover. But for now it was easier to just change the parser to
```
"?" >> (ident <|> "_")
```
and be done with it.
Fixes#5021
