Zulip Chat Archive
Stream: general
Topic: aesop try this regression
Kim Morrison (Nov 04 2024 at 00:56):
I see that on nightly-2024-11-03
(which has just become v4.14.0-rc1
), in aesop
we now have:
-- FIXME: the tombstone in the "try this" suggestion below appeared in nightly-2024-11-03,
-- presumably because of https://github.com/leanprover/lean4/pull/5898
/--
info: Try this:
simp_all (config✝ := { }) only
-/
#guard_msgs in
example : True := by
aesop? (config := {}) (simp_config := {})
@Kyle Miller and @Jannis Limperg, can I hand this off to you to decide if further changes are required.
For now, I'm going to commit this changed test to master
.
Jannis Limperg (Nov 04 2024 at 11:17):
I'm looking into it.
Jannis Limperg (Nov 04 2024 at 11:50):
@Kyle Miller is it possible that this syntax declaration is slightly wrong?
syntax valConfigItem := atomic(" (" notFollowedBy(&"discharger" <|> &"disch") (ident <|> &"config")) " := " withoutPosition(term) ")"
With ident <|> &"config"
, I would expect that ident
overlaps &"config"
, and hence that the second alternative is never considered.
Jannis Limperg (Nov 04 2024 at 12:02):
aesop#175 adds a workaround.
Last updated: May 02 2025 at 03:31 UTC