Closed
Conversation
kim-em
reviewed
Nov 20, 2022
kim-em
reviewed
Nov 20, 2022
kim-em
reviewed
Nov 20, 2022
kim-em
reviewed
Nov 20, 2022
kim-em
reviewed
Nov 20, 2022
kim-em
reviewed
Nov 20, 2022
Contributor
|
bors merge |
bors bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 20, 2022
Commented the meta code at the end that I cannot handle myself. (Never needed it when using category theory in mathlib3...). Following the comment `(If Lean supported definitional eta equality for records, we could achieve the same goals using a structure with one field.)` in the file, would not it be slightly nicer to use a structure with one field (named `unop`?!) for `Opposite` instead of a type synonym as it was the case in mathlib3 since it seems that in Lean 4 we would still have nice definitional equalities `op_unop` and `unop_op`? Mathlib SHA : fd47bdf09e90f553519c712378e651975fe8c829 Co-authored-by: Scott Morrison <scott@tqft.net>
|
Pull request successfully merged into master. Build succeeded: |
bors bot
pushed a commit
to leanprover-community/mathlib3
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 21, 2022
Regenerated from the [port status wiki page](https://github.com/leanprover-community/mathlib/wiki/mathlib4-port-status). Relates to the following PRs: * leanprover-community/mathlib4#563 * leanprover-community/mathlib4#608 * leanprover-community/mathlib4#627 * leanprover-community/mathlib4#638 * leanprover-community/mathlib4#641 * leanprover-community/mathlib4#645 * leanprover-community/mathlib4#650
bors bot
pushed a commit
to leanprover-community/mathlib3
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 21, 2022
Regenerated from the [port status wiki page](https://github.com/leanprover-community/mathlib/wiki/mathlib4-port-status). Relates to the following PRs: * leanprover-community/mathlib4#563 * leanprover-community/mathlib4#608 * leanprover-community/mathlib4#627 * leanprover-community/mathlib4#638 * leanprover-community/mathlib4#641 * leanprover-community/mathlib4#645 * leanprover-community/mathlib4#650
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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.
Commented the meta code at the end that I cannot handle myself. (Never needed it when using category theory in mathlib3...).
Following the comment
(If Lean supported definitional eta equality for records, we could achieve the same goals using a structure with one field.)in the file, would not it be slightly nicer to use a structure with one field (namedunop?!) forOppositeinstead of a type synonym as it was the case in mathlib3 since it seems that in Lean 4 we would still have nice definitional equalitiesop_unopandunop_op?Mathlib SHA : fd47bdf09e90f553519c712378e651975fe8c829