-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 201
SetoidRewrite: various cleanups and simplifications #2329
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
SetoidRewrite: various cleanups and simplifications #2329
Conversation
|
Those warnings are not from dune but from Coqc. If you pass
|
|
@Alizter Ah, the warnings are from coqdep, not coqc. I'm using Rocq Prover, version 9.1.0, without the standard library, and I get those warnings with the existing version of SetoidRewrite.v as well. So whatever is causing this has nothing to do with this PR. For the record, here's what is in _build/log: |
|
@patrick-nicodemus I think the changes I made here are pretty straightforward, so if you can give it a quick skim, that would be great. Thanks! |
a525eac to
8ae5ffa
Compare
|
Okay, I will review it |
|
@patrick-nicodemus I just added a few more clarifications. |
|
Ok. I will review this this morning. |
|
Okay. Thanks for your patience. I only noticed one thing, the string CoqDoc appears in a comment on line 361 in file Cubical/PathSquare.v Looks okay other than that. |
This PR only changed one file, SetoidRewrite.v, so I'm not sure why you are commenting on PathSquare.v. Were you looking at the correct PR when reviewing? (Also, that typo was just fixed in #2328.) |
I ran |
|
Ah, for future reference, you can just look at the "Files Changed" tab on this github page. Thanks for the review! |
I'm starting to experiment with SetoidRewrite, and while reading through the file I made some simplifications and cleanups.
I removed the comments about requiring the standard library, since that's no longer the case.
I do get dune warnings saying
but the build is still successful. @Alizter , any idea what's up with these?
I don't know anything about the setoid rewriting stuff, but I was surprised that we have to provide lots of proofs that are just composites of transitivity and symmetry. Can't we just declare that these relations are transitive and symmetric?
@patrick-nicodemus Can you review this?