refactor(logic/function): inv_fun takes a nonempty instance instead of inhabited #2148
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
semorrison
approved these changes
Mar 14, 2020
semorrison
added
the
ready-to-merge
anrddh
pushed a commit
to anrddh/mathlib
that referenced
this pull request
May 15, 2020
…f inhabited (leanprover-community#2148) 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
…f inhabited (leanprover-community#2148) 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Since
function.inv_funis totally classical anyway, there's no reason to have aninhabitedassumption instead ofnonemptyTO CONTRIBUTORS:
Make sure you have:
If this PR is related to a discussion on Zulip, please include a link in the discussion.
For reviewers: code review check list