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.

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

chore(algebra/group): move is_mul/monoid/group_hom to deprecated/ #2056

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Mar 2, 2020

Conversation

urkud
Copy link
Member

@urkud urkud commented Feb 25, 2020

Also migrate a few definitions to bundled homs:

  • use monoid_hom.map_is_conj instead of is_group_hom.is_conj;
  • with_one.lift and with_one.map now take f and an explicit
    argument h : ∀ x y, f (x * y) = f x * f y instead of f and
    [is_mul_hom f], and produce a monoid_hom. As a side effect, they
    are now defined for semigroup homomorphisms only.

TO CONTRIBUTORS:

Make sure you have:

  • reviewed and applied the coding style: coding, naming
  • reviewed and applied the documentation requirements
  • for tactics:
  • make sure definitions and lemmas are put in the right files
  • make sure definitions and lemmas are not redundant

If this PR is related to a discussion on Zulip, please include a link in the discussion.

For reviewers: code review check list

Also improve deprecation docstring.

TODO: fix compile
Also migrate a few definitions to bundled homs:

* use `monoid_hom.map_is_conj` instead of `is_group_hom.is_conj`;
* `with_one.lift` and `with_one.map` now take `f` and an explicit
  argument `h : ∀ x y, f (x * y) = f x * f y` instead of `f` and
  `[is_mul_hom f]`, and produce a `monoid_hom`. As a side effect, they
  are now defined for semigroup homomorphisms only.
@urkud
Copy link
Member Author

urkud commented Feb 25, 2020

I think it makes sense to separate deprecated code from non-deprecated. If this will be accepted, I'll do the same to is_(semi)ring_hom.

@semorrison
Copy link
Collaborator

Sounds like a good idea to me!

@urkud urkud added the awaiting-review The author would like community review of the PR label Feb 28, 2020
@semorrison semorrison 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 Feb 28, 2020
@mergify mergify bot merged commit bfbd093 into master Mar 2, 2020
@mergify mergify bot deleted the hom-deprecate branch March 2, 2020 14:26
anrddh pushed a commit to anrddh/mathlib that referenced this pull request May 15, 2020
…leanprover-community#2056)

* Move `is_mul/monoid/group_hom` to `deprecated/`

Also improve deprecation docstring.

TODO: fix compile

* chore(algebra/group): move `is_mul/monoid/group_hom` to `deprecated/`

Also migrate a few definitions to bundled homs:

* use `monoid_hom.map_is_conj` instead of `is_group_hom.is_conj`;
* `with_one.lift` and `with_one.map` now take `f` and an explicit
  argument `h : ∀ x y, f (x * y) = f x * f y` instead of `f` and
  `[is_mul_hom f]`, and produce a `monoid_hom`. As a side effect, they
  are now defined for semigroup homomorphisms only.

* Adjust module docstring

* Update src/algebra/group/with_one.lean

I wonder if mergify will do its job now.

Co-authored-by: mergify[bot] <37929162+mergify[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
anrddh pushed a commit to anrddh/mathlib that referenced this pull request May 16, 2020
…leanprover-community#2056)

* Move `is_mul/monoid/group_hom` to `deprecated/`

Also improve deprecation docstring.

TODO: fix compile

* chore(algebra/group): move `is_mul/monoid/group_hom` to `deprecated/`

Also migrate a few definitions to bundled homs:

* use `monoid_hom.map_is_conj` instead of `is_group_hom.is_conj`;
* `with_one.lift` and `with_one.map` now take `f` and an explicit
  argument `h : ∀ x y, f (x * y) = f x * f y` instead of `f` and
  `[is_mul_hom f]`, and produce a `monoid_hom`. As a side effect, they
  are now defined for semigroup homomorphisms only.

* Adjust module docstring

* Update src/algebra/group/with_one.lean

I wonder if mergify will do its job now.

Co-authored-by: mergify[bot] <37929162+mergify[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ready-to-merge All that is left is for bors to build and merge this PR. (Remember you need to say `bors r+`.)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants