You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
According to the library style, needs it to be ++-cong₂ : _++_ Preserves₂ (Pointwise _~_) ⟶ (Pointwise _~_) ⟶ (Pointwise _~_)
?
There remains a question of the difference between REL A B _ and Rel A _, Rel B _.
So that I wonder.
Anyway, it has, probably, sense to add lemmas derived from ++⁺, named ++-cong<foo>,
and having Preserves/Preserves₂ in the signature.
For example, in my program, I write for lists over a setoid:
For Lists defined over a Setoid, S say, you can now, since #2393 (part of the v2.1-rc1), proceed as follows: instead of defining such things directly, write
open importData.List.Relation.Binary.Equality.Setoid S using (isMagma)
openIsMagma isMagma using () renaming (∙-congʳ to ++⁺ʳ; ∙-congˡ to ++⁺ˡ)
(or whatever names you find convenient)
This does not tackle the Pointwise heterogeneous definitions directly, but suffices for the homogeneous Equality.Setoid case.
Suggest closing this issue now, unless the full generality for Pointwise is required... in which case #2426 will eventually do so.
Data.List.Relation.Binary.Pointwise has
According to the library style, needs it to be
++-cong₂ : _++_ Preserves₂ (Pointwise _~_) ⟶ (Pointwise _~_) ⟶ (Pointwise _~_)
?
There remains a question of the difference between
REL A B _
andRel A _, Rel B _
.So that I wonder.
Anyway, it has, probably, sense to add lemmas derived from
++⁺
, named++-cong<foo>
,and having
Preserves/Preserves₂
in the signature.For example, in my program, I write for lists over a setoid:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: