18c97926a1
this is in preparation for #4542, and extracts from `findRecArg` the functionality for trying one particular argument. It also refactors the code a bit. In particular * It reports errors in the order of the parameters, not the order of in which they are tried (it tries non-indices first). * For every argument it will say why it wasn't tried, even if the reason is quite obviously (fixed prefix, or `Prop`-typed etc.) Therefore there is some error message churn.
98 lines
2.5 KiB
Text
98 lines
2.5 KiB
Text
Inferred termination argument:
|
|
termination_by n - i
|
|
Inferred termination argument:
|
|
termination_by xs.size - i
|
|
Inferred termination argument:
|
|
termination_by xs.size - i
|
|
Inferred termination argument:
|
|
termination_by (xs.size - i, ys.size - j)
|
|
Inferred termination argument:
|
|
termination_by (xs.size - i, i - j)
|
|
Inferred termination argument:
|
|
termination_by (xs.size - i, i)
|
|
guessLexDiff.lean:84:4-84:11: error: fail to show termination for
|
|
failure
|
|
with errors
|
|
structural recursion cannot be used:
|
|
|
|
argument #1 cannot be used for structural recursion
|
|
it is unchanged in the recursive calls
|
|
|
|
argument #2 cannot be used for structural recursion
|
|
failed to eliminate recursive application
|
|
_root_.failure xs i
|
|
|
|
Could not find a decreasing measure.
|
|
The arguments relate at each recursive call as follows:
|
|
(<, ≤, =: relation proved, ? all proofs failed, _: no proof attempted)
|
|
i #1 #2 i + i
|
|
1) 85:26-38 = = = =
|
|
2) 85:58-76 ? < _ _
|
|
3) 85:26-38 = = = =
|
|
4) 88:26-42 _ < _ _
|
|
5) 88:26-42 ? ≤ ≤ ?
|
|
6) 88:26-42 _ < _ _
|
|
7) 88:26-42 _ < _ _
|
|
8) 88:26-42 _ < _ _
|
|
9) 97:8-20 _ < _ _
|
|
|
|
#1: xs.size - i
|
|
#2: xs.size - (i + 1)
|
|
|
|
Please use `termination_by` to specify a decreasing measure.
|
|
guessLexDiff.lean:102:4-102:18: error: fail to show termination for
|
|
mutual_failure
|
|
mutual_failure2
|
|
with errors
|
|
structural recursion does not handle mutually recursive functions
|
|
|
|
Could not find a decreasing measure.
|
|
The arguments relate at each recursive call as follows:
|
|
(<, ≤, =: relation proved, ? all proofs failed, _: no proof attempted)
|
|
Call from mutual_failure to mutual_failure2 at 104:4-24:
|
|
i #1 #2
|
|
i = ? ?
|
|
#3 ? = ?
|
|
Call from mutual_failure to mutual_failure2 at 104:52-78:
|
|
i #1 #2
|
|
i ? _ _
|
|
#3 _ < _
|
|
Call from mutual_failure to mutual_failure2 at 104:4-24:
|
|
i #1 #2
|
|
i _ _ _
|
|
#3 _ = _
|
|
Call from mutual_failure to mutual_failure2 at 111:4-28:
|
|
i #1 #2
|
|
i _ _ _
|
|
#3 _ < _
|
|
Call from mutual_failure to mutual_failure2 at 117:8-28:
|
|
i #1 #2
|
|
i _ _ _
|
|
#3 _ ? _
|
|
Call from mutual_failure2 to mutual_failure at 123:4-23:
|
|
i #3
|
|
i _ _
|
|
#1 _ _
|
|
#2 _ _
|
|
Call from mutual_failure2 to mutual_failure at 123:50-75:
|
|
i #3
|
|
i _ _
|
|
#1 _ _
|
|
#2 _ _
|
|
Call from mutual_failure2 to mutual_failure at 127:4-27:
|
|
i #3
|
|
i _ _
|
|
#1 _ _
|
|
#2 _ _
|
|
Call from mutual_failure2 to mutual_failure at 133:8-27:
|
|
i #3
|
|
i _ _
|
|
#1 _ _
|
|
#2 _ _
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1: xs.size - i
|
|
#2: xs.size - (i + 1)
|
|
#3: xs.size - i
|
|
|
|
Please use `termination_by` to specify a decreasing measure.
|