Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Using new syntax for projection instance declarations #2263
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Using new syntax for projection instance declarations #2263
Changes from 3 commits
9461208
bd3ec1b
a913e1e
54de2bc
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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 is funny. Back when the syntax was
:>
for an existing instance in aClass
we had these priorities. When they were removed the parser still accepted and ignored them. Now that we are adding them back in, the priority is back to the original one.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 was pleasantly surprised that this notation was accepted by the parser.
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.
Does that mean that this change is also a semantic one? Why should we set the cost of this instance to something other than the default? (And since this wasn't just a rote change, it should have been highlighted in the PR.)
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 original intention is for the reflexivity instance coming from here to be lower priority than the rest. This was broken some time when we removed the legacy
:>
syntax.We have two choices: Either we remove the
| 2
s or we keep them the way they are. The secondary option seems better as I think I see the reason for choosing a lower priority. During typeclass search, you don't want to try the reflexivity proof from the preorder class ofR
rather than just choosing a direct reflexivity proof if one is available.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 thought that the original hint had a custom priority of 2. If there was no custom priority in the original hint than this is a mistake and I'll look at it again to see what happened. Maybe I mixed it up with another hint
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.
As Ali explained, I think historically it had a custom priority of 2, but when the old
:>
notation for an instance was replaced with an explicitExisting Instance
line, that priority was lost (but the| 2
was still in the record field, doing nothing). Then your change caused the priority to go back to 2. Ali suggests that this is probably a good thing, so there is no need to change this PR. I was just pointing out that this is a semantic change, which should have been mentioned, but of course it was the kind of thing that would be easy to miss.Unchanged files with check annotations Beta
Check warning on line 16 in test/Tactics/napply.v
Check warning on line 16 in test/Tactics/napply.v
Check warning on line 16 in test/Tactics/napply.v
Check warning on line 10 in theories/Basics/Settings.v
Check warning on line 12 in theories/Basics/Settings.v