27df5e968a
This PR implements `Simp.Config.implicitDefEqsProofs`. When `true` (default: `true`), `simp` will **not** create a proof term for a rewriting rule associated with an `rfl`-theorem. Rewriting rules are provided by users by annotating theorems with the attribute `@[simp]`. If the proof of the theorem is just `rfl` (reflexivity), and `implicitDefEqProofs := true`, `simp` will **not** create a proof term which is an application of the annotated theorem. The default setting does change the existing behavior. Users can use `simp -implicitDefEqProofs` to force `simp` to create a proof term for `rfl`-theorems. This can positively impact proof checking time in the kernel. This PR also fixes an issue in the `split` tactic that has been exposed by this feature. It was looking for `split` candidates in proofs and implicit arguments. See new test for issue exposed by the previous feature. --------- Co-authored-by: Kim Morrison <kim@tqft.net>
16 lines
378 B
Text
16 lines
378 B
Text
def foo: {n: Nat} → Fin n → Nat
|
|
| 0, _ => 0
|
|
| n+1, _ => 0
|
|
|
|
theorem t3 {f: Fin (n+1)}:
|
|
foo f = 0 := by
|
|
dsimp only [←Nat.succ_eq_add_one n] at f -- use `dsimp` to ensure we don't copy `f`
|
|
trace_state
|
|
simp only [←Nat.succ_eq_add_one n, foo]
|
|
|
|
example {n: Nat} {f: Fin (n+1)}:
|
|
foo f = 0 := by
|
|
revert f
|
|
rw[←Nat.succ_eq_add_one n]
|
|
intro f
|
|
simp only [foo]
|