-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 253
[ refactor ] Data.List.Relation.Binary.Sublist.Propositional.Properties
#2808
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
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.
I think it would make sense to separate the pure additions from the modifications into 2 PRs.
@@ -167,7 +180,7 @@ lookup-⊆-trans = Any-resp-⊆-trans | |||
lookup-injective : ∀ {P : Pred A ℓ} {τ : xs ⊆ ys} {i j : Any P xs} → | |||
lookup τ i ≡ lookup τ j → i ≡ j | |||
lookup-injective {τ = _ ∷ʳ _} = lookup-injective ∘′ there-injective | |||
lookup-injective {τ = x≡y ∷ _} {here _} {here _} = cong here ∘′ subst-injective x≡y ∘′ here-injective | |||
lookup-injective {τ = refl ∷ _} {here _} {here _} = cong here ∘′ here-injective |
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.
This change now makes the comment right after it not make sense?
|
||
-- All P is a contravariant functor from _⊆_ to Set. | ||
|
||
All-resp-⊆ : (All P) Respects _⊇_ |
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.
The name says the opposite of the property?!?!?
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.
The name is legacy, back-ported from Propositional
. But I agree, it's maybe idiotic to have retained it.
Ah... yes, you're probably right. But as I comment on the original issue, it's perhaps not even obvious what the right way forward is here. |
See #2525 . This tackles the refactoring part, but does not resolve the duplication problem.
UPDATED: yuk... some tricky intensional equality snafus caused by the refactoring. FIXED now, but at the cost of a
breaking
(intensional to extensional) change...Not only that, but attempting to deprecate
anti-mono
/all-anti-mono
causes a dependency cycle betweenData.List.Relation.Unary.All.Properties
Data.List.Relation.Binary.Subset.Propositional.Properties
I'm tempted to suggest that we make the
breaking
change simply of moving the lemmas to the latter module, and marking this asnon-backwards-compatible
for the sake of a simpler dependency graph?