Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

[Merged by Bors] - feat(tactic/lift): elaborate proof with the expected type #7739

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from
Closed

[Merged by Bors] - feat(tactic/lift): elaborate proof with the expected type #7739

wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

fpvandoorn
Copy link
Member

@fpvandoorn fpvandoorn commented May 28, 2021 •
edited
Loading

  • also slightly refactor the corresponding function a bit
  • add some tests
  • move all tests to tests/lift.lean

Open in Gitpod

@fpvandoorn
feat(tactic/lift): elaborate proof with the expected type
f849d53 
also slightly refactor the corresponding function a bit
@fpvandoorn
add test
abea231
@semorrison semorrison added the awaiting-author A reviewer has asked the author a question or requested changes label May 30, 2021
@fpvandoorn fpvandoorn added awaiting-review The author would like community review of the PR t-meta Tactics, attributes or user commands and removed awaiting-author A reviewer has asked the author a question or requested changes labels Jun 2, 2021
gebner
gebner reviewed Jun 3, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@gebner gebner left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

bors r+

src/tactic/lift.lean
prf ← mk_app `can_lift.cond [old_tp, new_tp, inst, e] >>= assert prf_nm,
dsimp_target s to_unfold {}, swap, return prf)
expected_prf_ty ← s.dsimplify to_unfold expected_prf_ty,
if h_some : h.is_some then
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A match h with | some h => ... | none => ... seems infinitely clearer here than the dependent if, but I realize that's in the eye of the beholder.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fair

@github-actions github-actions bot added ready-to-merge All that is left is for bors to build and merge this PR. (Remember you need to say `bors r+`.) and removed awaiting-review The author would like community review of the PR labels Jun 3, 2021
bors bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 3, 2021
@fpvandoorn
feat(tactic/lift): elaborate proof with the expected type (#7739)
fa51468 
* also slightly refactor the corresponding function a bit
* add some tests
* move all tests to `tests/lift.lean`
@bors
Copy link

bors bot commented Jun 3, 2021

Pull request successfully merged into master.

Build succeeded:

@bors bors bot changed the title feat(tactic/lift): elaborate proof with the expected type [Merged by Bors] - feat(tactic/lift): elaborate proof with the expected type Jun 3, 2021
@bors bors bot closed this Jun 3, 2021
@bors bors bot deleted the lift-proof branch June 3, 2021 22:02
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@gebner gebner gebner left review comments

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
ready-to-merge All that is left is for bors to build and merge this PR. (Remember you need to say `bors r+`.) t-meta Tactics, attributes or user commands
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
3 participants
@fpvandoorn @gebner @semorrison