This PR improves the error messages produced by the `split` tactic,
including suggesting syntax fixes and related tactics with which it
might be confused.
Note that, to avoid clashing with the new error message styling
conventions used in these messages, this PR also updates the formatting
of the message produced by `throwTacticEx`.
Closes#6224
This PR updates the formatting of, and adds explanations for, "unknown
identifier" errors as well as "failed to infer type" errors for binders
and definitions.
It attempts to ameliorate some of the confusion encountered in #1592 by
modifying the wording of the "header is elaborated before body is
processed" note and adding further discussion and examples of this
behavior in the corresponding error explanation.
This PR changes the `show t` tactic to match its documentation.
Previously it was a synonym for `change t`, but now it finds the first
goal that unifies with the term `t` and moves it to the front of the
goal list.
This PR modifies the pretty printing of pi types. Now `∀` will be
preferred over `→` for propositions if the domain is not a proposition.
For example, `∀ (n : Nat), True` pretty prints as `∀ (n : Nat), True`
rather than as `Nat → True`. There is also now an option `pp.foralls`
(default true) that when false disables using `∀` at all, for
pedagogical purposes. This PR also adjusts instance implicit binder
pretty printing — nondependent pi types won't show the instance binder
name. Closes#1834.
The linked RFC also suggests using `_` for binder names in case of
non-dependance. We're tabling that idea. Potentially it is useful for
hygienic names; this could improve how `Nat → True` pretty prints as `∀
(a : Nat), True`, with this `a` that's chosen by implication notation
elaboration. Relatedly, this PR exposes even further the issue where
binder names are reused in a confusing way. Consider: `Nat → Nat → (a :
Nat) → a = a` pretty prints as `∀ (a a a : Nat), a = a`.
This PR adds server-side support for dedicated 'unsolved goals' and
'goals accomplished' diagnostics that will have special support in the
Lean 4 VS Code extension. The special 'unsolved goals' diagnostic is
adapted from the 'unsolved goals' error diagnostic, while the 'goals
accomplished' diagnostic is issued when a `theorem` or `Prop`-typed
`example` has no errors or `sorry`s. The Lean 4 VS Code extension
companion PR is at leanprover/vscode-lean4#585.
Specifically, this PR extends the diagnostics served by the language
server with the following fields:
- `leanTags`: Custom tags that denote the kind of diagnostic that is
being served. As opposed to the `code`, `leanTags` should never be
displayed in the UI. Examples introduced by this PR are a tag to
distinguish 'unsolved goals' errors from other diagnostics, as well as a
tag to distinguish the new 'goals accomplished' diagnostic from other
diagnostics.
- `isSilent`: Whether a diagnostic should not be displayed as a regular
diagnostic in the editor. In VS Code, this means that the diagnostic is
displayed in the InfoView under 'Messages', but that it will not be
displayed under 'All Messages' and that it will also not be displayed
with a squiggly line.
The `isSilent` field is also implemented for `Message` so that silent
diagnostics can be logged in the elaborator. All code paths except for
the language server that display diagnostics to users are adjusted to
filter `Message`s with `isSilent := true`.
This PR fixes the location of the error emitted when the `rintro` and
`intro` tactics cannot introduce the requested number of binders.
This patch adds a few `withRef` wrappers to invocations of
`MVarId.intro` to fix error locations. Perhaps `MVarId.intro` should
take a syntax object to set the location itself in the future; however
there are a couple other call sites which would need non-trivial fixup.
Closes #5659.
the internal constructions for structural and well-founded recursion
use plenty of `PProd` and `MProd`, and reading these, deeply
nested and in prefix notation, is unnecessarily troublesome.
Therefore this introduces notations
```
a ×ₚ b -- PProd a b
a ×ₘ b -- MProd a b
()ₚ -- PUnit.unit
(x,y,z)ₚ -- PProd.mk x (PProd.mk y z)
(x,y,z)ₘ -- MProd.mk x (MProd.mk y z)
```
(This is part 1, the rest will follow in #4730 after a stage0 update.)
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>
