feat: add Meta.letToHave and the let_to_have tactic
#8954
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
This PR adds a procedure that efficiently transforms `let` expressions into `have` expressions (`Meta.letToHave`). This is exposed as the `let_to_have` tactic.
|
Mathlib CI status (docs):
|
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 adds a procedure that efficiently transforms
letexpressions intohaveexpressions (Meta.letToHave). This is exposed as thelet_to_havetactic.It uses the
withTrackingZetaDeltatechnique: the expression is typechecked, and anyletvariables that don't enter the zeta delta set are nondependent. The procedure uses a number of heuristics to limit the amount of typechecking performed. For example, it is ok to skip subexpressions that do not contain fvars, mvars, orlets.