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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

[ refactor ] Fix/rationalise 'legacy' binder names in Relation.Binary.Definitions (and elsewhere?) #2547

Open
jamesmckinna opened this issue Jan 14, 2025 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #2552
Open

[ refactor ] Fix/rationalise 'legacy' binder names in Relation.Binary.Definitions (and elsewhere?) #2547

jamesmckinna opened this issue Jan 14, 2025 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #2552
Labels
breaking library-design refactoring
Milestone
v3.0

Comments

@jamesmckinna
Copy link
Contributor

Seeing #2546 made me realise that I personally can no longer tolerate the inconsistency between the use of x (in Reflexive), x and y (in Symmetric), but i j and k in Relation.Binary.Definitions.Transitive.

We should fix this in v3.0, IMNSVHO. What other such horrors are lurking out there?
@jamesmckinna jamesmckinna added this to the v3.0 milestone Jan 14, 2025
@JacquesCarette
Copy link
Contributor

Agreed. I guess 'named arguments' make this strongly a v3.0 issue. Sigh.

@jamesmckinna jamesmckinna linked a pull request Jan 15, 2025 that will close this issue
Open
4 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
breaking library-design refactoring
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v3.0
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

[ refactor ] rectify binder names in Relation.Binary.Definitions jamesmckinna/agda-stdlib
2 participants
@JacquesCarette @jamesmckinna