23b23c1236
This PR updates `rw?`, `show_term`, and other tactic-suggesting tactics to suggest `expose_names` when necessary and validate tactics prior to suggesting them, as `exact?` already did, and it also ensures all such tactics produce hover info in the messages showing tactic suggestions. This introduces a breaking change in the `TryThis` API: the `type?` parameter of `addRewriteSuggestion` is now an `LOption`, not an `Option`, to obviate the need for a hack we previously used to indicate that a rewrite closed the goal. Closes #7350
35 lines
949 B
Text
35 lines
949 B
Text
/-!
|
||
# Avoid delaborating with field notation if object is a metavariable application.
|
||
|
||
https://github.com/leanprover/lean4/issues/5993
|
||
-/
|
||
|
||
set_option pp.mvars false
|
||
|
||
/-!
|
||
No field notation notation here. Used to print `refine ?_.succ` and `refine ?_.snd`.
|
||
-/
|
||
|
||
/--
|
||
info: Try this: refine Nat.succ ?_
|
||
---
|
||
info: found a partial proof, but the corresponding tactic failed:
|
||
(expose_names; refine Prod.snd ?_)
|
||
|
||
It may be possible to correct this proof by adding type annotations, explicitly specifying implicit arguments, or eliminating unnecessary function abstractions.
|
||
-/
|
||
#guard_msgs in
|
||
example : Nat := by
|
||
show_term refine Nat.succ ?_
|
||
show_term refine Prod.snd (α := Int) ?_
|
||
exact default
|
||
|
||
/-!
|
||
No field notation even under binders. (That is, be aware of delayed assignment metavariables.)
|
||
-/
|
||
|
||
/-- info: Try this: refine fun x => Nat.succ ?_ -/
|
||
#guard_msgs in
|
||
example : Nat → Nat := by
|
||
show_term refine fun _ => Nat.succ ?_
|
||
exact default
|