Adjust implicits of cancellation lemmas

Like injectivity lemmas, instances of cancellation lemmas (whose
conclusion is `cancel ? ?`, `{in ?, cancel ? ?}`, `pcancel`, or
`ocancel`) are passed to
generic lemmas such as `canRL` or `canLR_in`. Thus such lemmas should
not have trailing on-demand implicits _just before_ the `cancel`
conclusion, as these would be inconvenient to insert (requiring
essentially an explicit eta-expansion).
We therefore use `Arguments` or `Prenex Implicits` directives to make
all such arguments maximally inserted implicits. We don’t, however make
other arguments implicit, so as not to spoil direct instantiation of
the lemmas (in, e.g., `rewrite -[y](invmK injf)`).
We have also tried to do this with lemmas whose statement matches a
`cancel`, i.e., ending in `forall x, g (E[x]) = x` (where pattern
unification will pick up `f = fun x => E[x]`).
We also adjusted implicits of a few stray injectivity
lemmas, and defined constants.
We provide a shorthand for reindexing a bigop with a permutation.
Finally we used the new implicit signatures to simplify proofs that
use injectivity or cancellation lemmas.

1 files changed, 1 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/mathcomp/ssreflect/tuple.v b/mathcomp/ssreflect/tuple.v
index 9154eb5..8f81155 100644
--- a/mathcomp/ssreflect/tuple.v
+++ b/mathcomp/ssreflect/tuple.v
@@ -336,7 +336,7 @@ Definition enum : seq (n.-tuple T) :=
 
 Lemma enumP : Finite.axiom enum.
 Proof.
-case=> /= t t_n; rewrite -(count_map _ (pred1 t)) (pmap_filter (@insubK _ _ _)).
+case=> /= t t_n; rewrite -(count_map _ (pred1 t)) (pmap_filter (insubK _)).
 rewrite count_filter -(@eq_count _ (pred1 t)) => [|s /=]; last first.
   by rewrite isSome_insub; case: eqP=> // ->.
 elim: n t t_n => [|m IHm] [|x t] //= {IHm}/IHm; move: (iter m _ _) => em IHm.