Now, the elaborator only uses the quasi-pattern unifier approximation
for inferring the implicit motive in recursor-like applications.
This change was motivated by counterintuitive behavior associated with
this approximation. For example, before this commit
```
variables {δ σ : Type}
def ex1 : state_t δ (state_t σ id) σ :=
monad_lift (get : state_t σ id σ) -- doesn't work
def ex2 : state_t δ (state_t σ id) σ :=
do s ← monad_lift (get : state_t σ id σ), -- works
return s
```
The first one doesn't work because when we elaborate
`@monad_lift ?m ?n ?c ?α (get : state_t σ id σ) : ?n ?α`
with expected type `state_t δ (state_t σ id) σ`
It first produces the following unification problem by processing
matching the inferred type with the expected one.
```
?n ?α =?= state_t δ (state_t σ id) σ
==> (approximate using first-order unification)
?n := state_t δ (state_t σ id)
?α := σ
```
Then we try to solve
```
?m ?α =?= state_t σ id σ
==> instantiate metavars
?m σ =?= state_t σ id σ
==> (approximate since it is a quasi-pattern unification constraint)
?m := λ σ, state_t σ id σ
```
Remark: the constraint is not a Milner pattern because `σ` is in
the local context of `?m`. By assuming it is a Milner pattern,
we are ignoring the other possible solutions:
```
?m := λ σ', state_t σ id σ
?m := λ σ', state_t σ' id σ
?m := λ σ', state_t σ id σ'
```
We need the quasi-pattern approximation for elaborating recursors.
So, this commit enable this kind of approximation only when
elaborating recursors and executing induction-like tactics.
If we had used first-order unification, then we would have produced
the right answer: `?m := state_t σ id`
Haskell would solve this example since it always uses
first-order unification during elaboration.
The second one works because when we elaborate
`monad_lift (get : state_t σ id σ)`, the expected type is `state_t δ (state_t σ id) ?α`.
So, `?m ?α =?= state_t σ id σ` will not considered to be a quasi-pattern
since `?α` is not yet assigned to a local constant.
We are not fully confident this commit produces a better user
experience. We know that
- Full higher-order unification (used in Lean2) produces a combinatoric
explosion, and generates a lot of non-termination in complex type class
hierarchies (monad library, has_coe, etc). The problem is that
higher-order unification manages to create new solutions that we
cannot find using first-order unification.
- Lean3 is more reliable than Lean2 for elaborating monadic code because
it does not use higher-order unification.
- For elaborating recursor-like applications, we need at least the
quasi-patterns. We need it when trying to infer the implicit
motive. First-order unification works poorly in this case. Note that
the lack of higher-order unification in Lean3 forces us to provide the
motive explicitly for terms that Lean2 can elaborate.
- We need quasi-patterns for solving unification constraints in the
induction-like tactics. Similar to the previous item. We use it to infer
the motive. (edited) I will try to disable the quasi-pattern
approximation when elaborating regular applications. At least, we will
behave like Haskell for this kind of application.
118c909504