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

feat(ext): ext fails if it can't make progress #151

Closed

Conversation

semorrison
Copy link
Collaborator

Per discussion with @cipher1024 on zulip.

@cipher1024
Copy link
Collaborator

Is there any test case for under test/ for ext? It's not a rule of mathlib but I find it a useful thing to keep. In change sets, that already gives you a diff on how the use of the tactic will change or at least just an example use of the tactic.

@semorrison
Copy link
Collaborator Author

semorrison commented Jun 5, 2018

There were test cases for ext1. I added two more test cases, checking that ext behaves as expected when there are either 2 or 0 levels of extensionality lemmas to apply.

@semorrison
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Closing this, as @cipher1024 has included this functionality in his more recent PR 3a4dd38, including test cases.

@semorrison semorrison closed this Jun 16, 2018
@semorrison semorrison deleted the ext_at_least_once branch June 23, 2018 03:17
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants