-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 444
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: upstream rw? tactic #3719
Conversation
Mathlib CI status (docs):
|
-- set_option trace.Tactic.rewrites.lemmas true | ||
|
||
/-- | ||
info: Try this: rw [@List.map_append] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah --- I was just noticing this while otherwise happily using rw_search
to repair some proofs in Mathlib. There is a pretty unnecessary @
at the front of each lemma name here, because of the way we've going from Name
to Expr
. Do you see a way to avoid having this initial @
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Blind guess: use https://leanprover-community.github.io/mathlib4_docs/Std/Lean/Delaborator.html#Lean.ppConst in the right place?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@nomeata Thanks. I just tested it and it seems to work by upstreaming and inserting into Tactic.TryThis.addRewrite suggestion
. I'll make a separate PR for it since it's largely orthogonal to this work.
Co-authored-by: Scott Morrison <[email protected]>
e8c7071
to
9af3bc5
Compare
This updates the rw? tactic from Mathlib to use lazy discriminator trees and upstreams it.