Generalizes #3556 to not suppressing errors in tactic steps either when
the parse error is in a later step, as otherwise changes to the end of a
proof would affect (correctness or effectiveness of) incrementality of
preceding steps.
Fixes#4623, in combination with #4643
A pending tactic mvar managed to escape into an unexpected context in
specific circumstances.
```lean
example : True := by
· rw [show 0 = 0 by rfl]
```
* Term elaboration of the `show` creates a pending mvar for the `by rfl`
proof
* `rw` fails with an exception because the pattern does not occur in the
target
* `cdot` catches the exception and admits the goal
* `Term.runTactic` [synthesizes all pending mvars from the tactic's
execution](5f9dedfe5e/src/Lean/Elab/SyntheticMVars.lean (L350)),
including the `by rfl` proof. But this would not have happened without
`cdot` as the exception would have skipped that invocation!
* Now incrementality is confused because the nested `by rfl` proof is
unexpectedly run in the same context as the top-level proof, writing to
the wrong promise, and the error message is lost
Solution: disable incrementality for these pending mvars
As [reported on
Zulip](https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/113488-general/topic/maybe.20a.20cache.20bug.3F).
We expected that for sound reuse of elaboration results, it is
sufficient to compare the old and new syntax tree's structure and atoms
including position info, but not the whitespace in between them.
However, we have at least one request handler, the goal view, that
inspects the whitespace after a tactic and thus could return incorrect
results on reuse. For now we implement the straightforward fix of
checking the whitespace as well. Alternatives like updating the
whitespace stored in the reused info tree are tbd.
This has the slight disadvantage that adding whitespace at the end of a
tactic will re-execute it (or the entire body, but not the header, if
the body is not a tactic block), but only up to typing the first
character of the next tactic or command.
Extends Lean's incremental reporting and reuse between commands into
various steps inside declarations:
* headers and bodies of each (mutual) definition/theorem
* `theorem ... := by` for each contained tactic step, including
recursively inside supported combinators currently consisting of
* `·` (cdot), `case`, `next`
* `induction`, `cases`
* macros such as `next` unfolding to the above
*Incremental reuse* means not recomputing any such steps if they are not
affected by a document change. *Incremental reporting* includes the
parts seen in the recording above: the progress bar and messages. Other
language server features such as hover etc. are *not yet* supported
incrementally, i.e. they are shown only when the declaration has been
fully processed as before.
---------
Co-authored-by: Scott Morrison <scott.morrison@gmail.com>
