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>
37 lines
735 B
Text
37 lines
735 B
Text
def p (x : Prop) := x
|
|
|
|
@[simp] theorem lemma1 (x : Prop) : p x = x :=
|
|
rfl
|
|
|
|
theorem ex1 (x : Prop) (h : x) : p x := by
|
|
simp +implicitDefEqProofs
|
|
assumption
|
|
|
|
/--
|
|
info: theorem ex1 : ∀ (x : Prop), x → p x :=
|
|
fun x h => id h
|
|
-/
|
|
#guard_msgs in
|
|
#print ex1
|
|
|
|
theorem ex1' (x : Prop) (h : x) : p x := by
|
|
simp -implicitDefEqProofs
|
|
assumption
|
|
|
|
/--
|
|
info: theorem ex1' : ∀ (x : Prop), x → p x :=
|
|
fun x h => Eq.mpr (id (lemma1 x)) h
|
|
-/
|
|
#guard_msgs in
|
|
#print ex1'
|
|
|
|
theorem ex2 (x : Prop) (q : Prop → Prop) (h₁ : x) (h₂ : q x = x) : q x := by
|
|
simp [h₂]
|
|
assumption
|
|
|
|
/--
|
|
info: theorem ex2 : ∀ (x : Prop) (q : Prop → Prop), x → q x = x → q x :=
|
|
fun x q h₁ h₂ => Eq.mpr (id h₂) h₁
|
|
-/
|
|
#guard_msgs in
|
|
#print ex2
|