chore: remove change ... with tactic syntax#13029
Merged
Conversation
This PR removes the unused `change ... with` tactic syntax. It's been asked about a number of times recently, but it was never implemented. In PR #6018 we decided it was a Lean-3-ism.
github-actions
bot
added
the
toolchain-available
Collaborator
|
Reference manual CI status:
|
mathlib-nightly-testing bot
pushed a commit
to leanprover-community/batteries
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 22, 2026
github-actions
bot
added
the
mathlib4-nightly-available
mathlib-nightly-testing bot
pushed a commit
to leanprover-community/mathlib4-nightly-testing
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 22, 2026
|
Mathlib CI status (docs):
|
mathlib-lean-pr-testing
bot
added
the
builds-mathlib
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This PR removes the unused
change ... withtactic syntax.It's been asked about a number of times recently, but it was never implemented. In PR #6018 we decided it was a Lean-3-ism.