`exact?` configuration option to consider otherwise ignored, internal theorems
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
enhancement
P-low
- Dominant language
- Lean
- Stars
- 9.2k
- Forks
- 990
- Avg merge
- 1d 17h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 175
Description
After #6672, exact? and rw? no longer report results from Lean.* or *.Tactic.*. While this is an improvement for most users, sometimes these tools could be used by users looking for metaprogramming functions.
We could add a exact? +internals option to re-enable returning these results.
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reviewing the changes in #6672 and the implementations of exact? and rw?, focusing on where results from Lean.* and *.Tactic.* are filtered. Done means an exact? +internals option restores those results while the default behavior remains unchanged.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- compilers, tooling
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 3/5
- Estimated time
- 1-2 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100