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] - chore: remove redundant LinearEquiv.map_neg/sub #12330

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

Ruben-VandeVelde
Copy link
Collaborator

@Ruben-VandeVelde Ruben-VandeVelde commented Apr 22, 2024

These are redundant with _root_.{map_neg,map_sub}.


Open in Gitpod

@Ruben-VandeVelde Ruben-VandeVelde added the awaiting-review The author would like community review of the PR label Apr 22, 2024
Copy link
Collaborator

@grunweg grunweg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good to me.

Comment on lines +900 to +901
#align linear_equiv.map_neg map_negₓ
#align linear_equiv.map_sub map_subₓ
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What's the significance of the little x here?

Copy link
Collaborator

@grunweg grunweg Apr 24, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The porting wiki contains this:
"when mathport suggests that you add ₓ in the name of an #align statement, figure out why it wants that and leave a porting note. Common reasons are:

  • a change in the order of universe variables, typeclass arguments or implicit arguments
  • some other defeq change, due to a change deep down in core or std."

See also https://github.com/leanprover-community/mathlib4/wiki/Porting-wiki#aligning-names.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It means that the types don't match up exactly; in this case the new lemma is much more general.

@loefflerd loefflerd added awaiting-author A reviewer has asked the author a question or requested changes and removed awaiting-review The author would like community review of the PR labels Apr 24, 2024
@Ruben-VandeVelde Ruben-VandeVelde added awaiting-review The author would like community review of the PR and removed awaiting-author A reviewer has asked the author a question or requested changes labels Apr 26, 2024
@erdOne
Copy link
Member

erdOne commented Apr 27, 2024

I think this is useful to keep as sometimes _root_.map_sub times out when synthesizing typeclass arguments.

@Ruben-VandeVelde
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I have not experienced that

@riccardobrasca
Copy link
Member

Thanks!

bors merge

@github-actions github-actions bot added ready-to-merge This PR has been sent to bors. and removed awaiting-review The author would like community review of the PR labels Apr 29, 2024
mathlib-bors bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 29, 2024
These are redundant with `_root_.{map_neg,map_sub}`.
@mathlib-bors
Copy link

mathlib-bors bot commented Apr 29, 2024

Pull request successfully merged into master.

Build succeeded:

@mathlib-bors mathlib-bors bot changed the title chore: remove redundant LinearEquiv.map_neg/sub [Merged by Bors] - chore: remove redundant LinearEquiv.map_neg/sub Apr 29, 2024
@mathlib-bors mathlib-bors bot closed this Apr 29, 2024
@mathlib-bors mathlib-bors bot deleted the linearequiv-map branch April 29, 2024 10:36
apnelson1 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 12, 2024
These are redundant with `_root_.{map_neg,map_sub}`.
callesonne pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 16, 2024
These are redundant with `_root_.{map_neg,map_sub}`.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ready-to-merge This PR has been sent to bors.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants