feat: Simp.Config.implicitDefEqProofs
#4595
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
github-actions
bot
added
the
toolchain-available
leanprover-community-mathlib4-bot
added a commit
to leanprover-community/batteries
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 30, 2024
leanprover-community-mathlib4-bot
added a commit
to leanprover-community/mathlib4
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 30, 2024
leanprover-community-mathlib4-bot
added
breaks-mathlib
|
Mathlib CI status (docs):
|
leanprover-community-mathlib4-bot
added a commit
to leanprover-community/batteries
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 1, 2024
leanprover-community-mathlib4-bot
added a commit
to leanprover-community/mathlib4
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 1, 2024
leanprover-community-mathlib4-bot
added a commit
to leanprover-community/batteries
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 1, 2024
leanprover-community-mathlib4-bot
added a commit
to leanprover-community/mathlib4
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 1, 2024
leanprover-community-mathlib4-bot
added a commit
to leanprover-community/batteries
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 2, 2024
leanprover-community-mathlib4-bot
added a commit
to leanprover-community/mathlib4
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 2, 2024
mathlib-bors bot
pushed a commit
to leanprover-community/mathlib4
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 11, 2024
(With leanprover/lean4#4595, `aesop` goes astray here, and this proof is better anyway.)
mathlib-bors bot
pushed a commit
to leanprover-community/mathlib4
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 11, 2024
Defensive change preparing for leanprover/lean4#4595.
mathlib-bors bot
pushed a commit
to leanprover-community/mathlib4
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 11, 2024
Defensive change preparing for leanprover/lean4#4595.
semorrison
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 16, 2024
leodemoura
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 18, 2024
Motivation: unblock PR #4595 `Simp.Config.implicitDefEqProofs := false` is currently creating too many issues in Mathlib.
github-merge-queue bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 18, 2024
Motivation: unblock PR #4595 `Simp.Config.implicitDefEqProofs := false` is currently creating too many issues in Mathlib.
We also skip candidates in implicit arguments and binders of lambda expressions See new test.
leodemoura
requested review from
TwoFX,
digama0,
semorrison,
Vtec234,
kmill,
Kha and
tydeu
as code owners
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR implements
Simp.Config.implicitDefEqsProofs.When
true(default:false),simpwill not create a proof for a rewriting rule associated with anrfl-theorem.Rewriting rules are provided by users by annotating theorems with the attribute
@[simp]. If the proof of the theorem is justrfl(reflexivity), andimplicitDefEqProofs := true,simpwill not create a proof term which is an application of the annotated theorem.Users can use
simp (config := { implicitDefEqProofs := true })to restore old behavior.This PR also fixes an issue in the
splittactic that has been exposed by this feature. It was looking forsplitcandidates in proofs and implicit arguments. See new test for issue exposed by the previous feature.