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>
13 lines
403 B
Text
13 lines
403 B
Text
example {P} [Decidable P] {f g : Nat → Nat} {x : Nat} : (if P then f else g) x = 37 := by
|
|
split
|
|
· guard_target =ₛ f x = 37
|
|
sorry
|
|
· guard_target =ₛ g x = 37
|
|
sorry
|
|
|
|
example {P} [Decidable P] {f g : Nat → Nat} {x : Nat} {b : Bool} : (match b with | true => f | false => g) x = 37 := by
|
|
split
|
|
· guard_target =ₛ f x = 37
|
|
sorry
|
|
· guard_target =ₛ g x = 37
|
|
sorry
|