-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 247
[add] Update PartialSetoid reasoning #2689
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
Conversation
singleStep : ∀ x → x IsRelatedTo x | ||
multiStep : ∀ {x y} (x∼y : x ∼ y) → x IsRelatedTo y | ||
reflexive : ∀ {x y} → x ≡ y → x IsRelatedTo y | ||
relTo : ∀ {x y} (x∼y : x ∼ y) → x IsRelatedTo y |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Rename constructors to stay closer to Single
reasoning
Just to check: do these additions/changes fix the issues identified under the original PR? |
@jamesmckinna Yes, this will solve the issue by removing any eager pattern matching on propositional equality proofs. I will update this PR's description so that merging this closes the other PR. edit: The description is now updated. |
This will also need a |
@jamesmckinna Changelog entry is added. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Otherwise looks great, thanks for doing this!
@MatthewDaggitt Fixed! Thanks for the comments. |
How to label this one?
|
@jamesmckinna It seems like @MatthewDaggitt considers this as a bug fix. I think it is a breaking change, but since no one actually come up with an issue or a PR about the problem in #2677, maybe this one is not so impactful to become a "real" breaking change. |
For me, it's more a case of: let's decide, then merge for v2.3, or defer to the next release... |
@jamesmckinna I'm not sure it's okay for me to say this, but let's merge this for v2.3 if no one objects. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the changes @Ailrun. I'm happy to consider this a bugfix as this was the intended behaviour. Let's merge in v2.3.
Resolves #2677.
This one replaces the previous reasoning type for
PartialSetoid
with one properly supporting propositional equality steps.