-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 242
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
[DRY] More redundant zero
fields in Algebra.Structures
#2396
Comments
The zero field in the IsNonAssociativeRing was redundant, and could be replaced with a proof based on the other properties.
The zero field in the IsNonAssociativeRing was redundant, and could be replaced with a proof based on the other properties.
The zero field in the IsNonAssociativeRing was redundant, and could be replaced with a proof based on the other properties.
@lexvanderstoep Are you planning a PR at any point in this direction? |
Yes @jamesmckinna, there’s #2410 which was shelved at the time due to it being a breaking change. What do you think? Is it a better time now? |
@lexvanderstoep apologies! I'd completely forgotten (and had |
The zero field in the IsNonAssociativeRing was redundant, and could be replaced with a proof based on the other properties.
Done! Still works like a charm. I'll leave the PR as a draft for now then. We can come back to it when we get around to the new release :) |
Cf. #2195 and #2253
IsNonAssociativeRing
admits enough properties to make thezero
field redundant by exactly the same argument as forIsRingWithoutOne
(so the redundancy is abug
, and removing it would bebreaking
)IsRingWithoutOne
makes no use of*-assoc
...Possible remedy: introduce a further refinement in which a new
IsNonAssociativeRingWithoutOne
would the 'right' home for such an argument, with each of the above two structures inheriting from that...?See for example this blob and prior refactoring via
Quasiring...
for a possible solution.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: