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
The upcoming v2.1 has (more or less) standardised on a definition of pointwise equality/relations on (simply-typed) functions as being given by explicit quantification on its domain argument #2400#2429 (following on from #2240#2381#2382 etc.).
This issue is to consider a wholesale refactoring of these definitions (and any other related ones such as Function.Indexed.Relation.Binary.Equality) to introduce them as instances of a common case, namely the 'constant indexed family' version of Relation.Binary.Indexed.Homogeneous.Core.Lift
I'd be happy to replace them where it's backwards compatible... The problem is that many of them are defined as records or datatypes right? Which as experience has shown have very different inference behaviour from the generic version you link to.
I'd be happy to replace them where it's backwards compatible... The problem is that many of them are defined as records or datatypes right? Which as experience has shown have very different inference behaviour from the generic version you link to.
The upcoming v2.1 has (more or less) standardised on a definition of pointwise equality/relations on (simply-typed) functions as being given by explicit quantification on its domain argument #2400 #2429 (following on from #2240 #2381 #2382 etc.).
This issue is to consider a wholesale refactoring of these definitions (and any other related ones such as
Function.Indexed.Relation.Binary.Equality
) to introduce them as instances of a common case, namely the 'constant indexed family' version ofRelation.Binary.Indexed.Homogeneous.Core.Lift
Follow-up from #2400
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: