[Merged by Bors] - feat(data/finset): provide the coercion finset α → Type*
#7575
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
Can you add |
|
There's the obvious fintype instance which should be added on such a type. |
github-actions
bot
added
the
merge-conflict
2 tasks
Vierkantor
force-pushed
the
coe_to_sort-finset
branch
from
d788ce1
to
afd5bf7
Compare
|
It (finally!) builds on my machine now. Let's see what the linter thinks. |
github-actions
bot
removed
the
merge-conflict
Vierkantor
added
awaiting-review
eric-wieser
approved these changes
May 27, 2021
|
bors merge |
github-actions
bot
added
ready-to-merge
|
Merge conflict. |
github-actions
bot
added
the
merge-conflict
bryangingechen
added
awaiting-author
github-actions
bot
added
the
merge-conflict
|
The conflict was just two additions in the same place, easy to fix. Currently recompiling to see if anything breaks. |
This has been bugging me for a while and I have no good explanantion why it was missing. I'll let the CI run for a bit to see if the linters can explain why. TODO: get rid of the (obvious?) instances of the old pattern `(((s : finset α) : set α) : Type*)`
I definitely missed a number of them. I think I'll leave that for other cleanup commits.
Vierkantor
force-pushed
the
coe_to_sort-finset
branch
from
bb94b2b
to
cd97421
Compare
github-actions
bot
removed
the
merge-conflict
bryangingechen
added
delegated
|
Feel free to merge (again) if this builds! |
|
✌️ Vierkantor can now approve this pull request. To approve and merge a pull request, simply reply with |
|
bors r+ |
github-actions
bot
added
ready-to-merge
2 tasks
bors bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 31, 2021
There doesn't seem to be a good reason that `finset` doesn't have a `coe_to_sort` like `set` does. Before the change in this PR, we had to suffer the inconvenience of writing `(↑s : set _)` whenever we want the subtype of all elements of `s`. Now you can just write `s`. I removed the obvious instances of the `((↑s : set _) : Type*)` pattern, although it definitely remains in some places. I'd rather do those in separate PRs since it does not really do any harm except for being annoying to type. There are also some parts of the API (`polynomial.root_set` stands out to me) that could be designed around the use of `finset`s rather than `set`s that are later proved to be finite, which I again would like to declare out of scope.
|
Build failed (retrying...): |
bors bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 31, 2021
There doesn't seem to be a good reason that `finset` doesn't have a `coe_to_sort` like `set` does. Before the change in this PR, we had to suffer the inconvenience of writing `(↑s : set _)` whenever we want the subtype of all elements of `s`. Now you can just write `s`. I removed the obvious instances of the `((↑s : set _) : Type*)` pattern, although it definitely remains in some places. I'd rather do those in separate PRs since it does not really do any harm except for being annoying to type. There are also some parts of the API (`polynomial.root_set` stands out to me) that could be designed around the use of `finset`s rather than `set`s that are later proved to be finite, which I again would like to declare out of scope.
|
Build failed (retrying...): |
bors bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 31, 2021
There doesn't seem to be a good reason that `finset` doesn't have a `coe_to_sort` like `set` does. Before the change in this PR, we had to suffer the inconvenience of writing `(↑s : set _)` whenever we want the subtype of all elements of `s`. Now you can just write `s`. I removed the obvious instances of the `((↑s : set _) : Type*)` pattern, although it definitely remains in some places. I'd rather do those in separate PRs since it does not really do any harm except for being annoying to type. There are also some parts of the API (`polynomial.root_set` stands out to me) that could be designed around the use of `finset`s rather than `set`s that are later proved to be finite, which I again would like to declare out of scope.
|
Pull request successfully merged into master. Build succeeded: |
bors
bot
changed the title
finset α → Type*finset α → Type*
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.
There doesn't seem to be a good reason that
finsetdoesn't have acoe_to_sortlikesetdoes. Before the change in this PR, we had to suffer the inconvenience of writing(↑s : set _)whenever we want the subtype of all elements ofs. Now you can just writes.I removed the obvious instances of the
((↑s : set _) : Type*)pattern, although it definitely remains in some places. I'd rather do those in separate PRs since it does not really do any harm except for being annoying to type. There are also some parts of the API (polynomial.root_setstands out to me) that could be designed around the use offinsets rather thansets that are later proved to be finite, which I again would like to declare out of scope.