-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 465
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat: nested well-founded recursion via automatic preprocessing #6744
Merged
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
leanprover-community-mathlib4-bot
added a commit
to leanprover-community/batteries
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 22, 2025
leanprover-community-mathlib4-bot
added a commit
to leanprover-community/mathlib4
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 22, 2025
Mathlib CI status (docs):
|
leanprover-community-mathlib4-bot
added a commit
to leanprover-community/batteries
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 23, 2025
leanprover-community-mathlib4-bot
added a commit
to leanprover-community/mathlib4
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 23, 2025
leanprover-community-mathlib4-bot
added a commit
to leanprover-community/batteries
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 23, 2025
This PR avoids a `let` in the elaboration of `forIn`. It was introduced in f51328ff112 but nothing seems to break when I simplify the code. This produces cleaner termination proof goals which would otherwise have an unexpected ``` let col✝ := ``` in the context.
This reverts commit 5627e54.
…lean4 into joachim/forIn-let
leanprover-community-mathlib4-bot
added a commit
to leanprover-community/batteries
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 10, 2025
leanprover-community-mathlib4-bot
added a commit
to leanprover-community/mathlib4
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 10, 2025
3 tasks
leanprover-community-mathlib4-bot
added a commit
to leanprover-community/batteries
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 10, 2025
leanprover-community-mathlib4-bot
added a commit
to leanprover-community/mathlib4
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 10, 2025
david-christiansen
added a commit
to leanprover/reference-manual
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 14, 2025
This documents the changes from leanprover/lean4#6744. --------- Co-authored-by: David Thrane Christiansen <[email protected]>
tobiasgrosser
pushed a commit
to opencompl/lean4
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 16, 2025
) this PR helps with bootstrapping leanprover#6744.
tobiasgrosser
pushed a commit
to opencompl/lean4
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 16, 2025
…prover#6744) This PR extend the preprocessing of well-founded recursive definitions to bring assumptions like `h✝ : x ∈ xs` into scope automatically. This fixes leanprover#5471, and follows (roughly) the design written there. See the module docs at `src/Lean/Elab/PreDefinition/WF/AutoAttach.lean` for details on the implementation. This only works for higher-order functions that have a suitable setup. See for example section “Well-founded recursion preprocessing setup” in `src/Init/Data/List/Attach.lean`. This does not change the `decreasing_tactic`, so in some cases there is still the need for a manual termination proof some cases. We expect a better termination tactic in the near future.
luisacicolini
pushed a commit
to opencompl/lean4
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 24, 2025
) this PR helps with bootstrapping leanprover#6744.
luisacicolini
pushed a commit
to opencompl/lean4
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 24, 2025
…prover#6744) This PR extend the preprocessing of well-founded recursive definitions to bring assumptions like `h✝ : x ∈ xs` into scope automatically. This fixes leanprover#5471, and follows (roughly) the design written there. See the module docs at `src/Lean/Elab/PreDefinition/WF/AutoAttach.lean` for details on the implementation. This only works for higher-order functions that have a suitable setup. See for example section “Well-founded recursion preprocessing setup” in `src/Init/Data/List/Attach.lean`. This does not change the `decreasing_tactic`, so in some cases there is still the need for a manual termination proof some cases. We expect a better termination tactic in the near future.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
builds-mathlib
CI has verified that Mathlib builds against this PR
changelog-language
Language features, tactics, and metaprograms
toolchain-available
A toolchain is available for this PR, at leanprover/lean4-pr-releases:pr-release-NNNN
will-merge-soon
…unless someone speaks up
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 extend the preprocessing of well-founded recursive definitions to bring assumptions like
h✝ : x ∈ xs
into scope automatically.This fixes #5471, and follows (roughly) the design written there.
See the module docs at
src/Lean/Elab/PreDefinition/WF/AutoAttach.lean
for details on the implementation.This only works for higher-order functions that have a suitable setup. See for example section “Well-founded recursion preprocessing setup” in
src/Init/Data/List/Attach.lean
.This does not change the
decreasing_tactic
, so in some cases there is still the need for a manual termination proof some cases. We expect a better termination tactic in the near future.