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

[Merged by Bors] - fix(data/set/finite): add decidable assumptions #6264

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

kbuzzard
Copy link
Member

Yury's rule of thumb https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/217875-Is-there.20code.20for.20X.3F/topic/classicalize/near/224871122 says that we should have decidable instances here, because the statements of the lemmas need them (rather than the proofs). I'm making this PR to see if anything breaks.


@kbuzzard kbuzzard added RFC Request for comment WIP Work in progress labels Feb 16, 2021
@kbuzzard kbuzzard added awaiting-review The author would like community review of the PR and removed RFC Request for comment WIP Work in progress labels Feb 22, 2021
@semorrison
Copy link
Collaborator

bors merge

@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 Feb 23, 2021
bors bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 23, 2021
Yury's rule of thumb https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/217875-Is-there.20code.20for.20X.3F/topic/classicalize/near/224871122 says that we should have decidable instances here, because the statements of the lemmas need them (rather than the proofs). I'm making this PR to see if anything breaks.
@bors
Copy link

bors bot commented Feb 23, 2021

Pull request successfully merged into master.

Build succeeded:

@bors bors bot changed the title fix(data/set/finite): add decidable assumptions [Merged by Bors] - fix(data/set/finite): add decidable assumptions Feb 23, 2021
@bors bors bot closed this Feb 23, 2021
@bors bors bot deleted the finite-decidable-eq branch February 23, 2021 09:28
b-mehta pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 2, 2021
Yury's rule of thumb https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/217875-Is-there.20code.20for.20X.3F/topic/classicalize/near/224871122 says that we should have decidable instances here, because the statements of the lemmas need them (rather than the proofs). I'm making this PR to see if anything breaks.
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

4 participants