[Merged by Bors] - chore(Tactic): clean up q() notation
#10227
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
There is no need to write `(q(some_lemma))`, `q(some_lemma)` already has the right precedence. This also removes some `by exact`s that were either cargo-culted, or fixed by a recent change to Lean / Quote4.
eric-wieser
added
awaiting-review
easy
leanprover-community-mathlib4-bot
added
the
merge-conflict
3 tasks
eric-wieser
removed
the
merge-conflict
YaelDillies
reviewed
Feb 5, 2024
| @@ -254,7 +254,7 @@ def evalZPow : PositivityExt where eval {u α} zα pα e := do | |||
| have m : Q(ℕ) := mkRawNatLit (n / 2) | |||
| haveI' : $b =Q $m + $m := ⟨⟩ -- b = bit0 m | |||
| haveI' : $e =Q $a ^ $b := ⟨⟩ | |||
| pure (by exact .nonnegative q(zpow_bit0_nonneg $a $m)) | |||
| pure (.nonnegative q(zpow_bit0_nonneg $a $m)) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You could eliminate one more pair of brackets like so:
Suggested change
| pure (.nonnegative q(zpow_bit0_nonneg $a $m)) | |
| return .nonnegative q(zpow_bit0_nonneg $a $m) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
return isn't safe after ~q() matching due to leanprover-community/quote4#21, so I'd prefer not to risk breaking random things here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wasn't aware that return is different to pure...
|
🚀 Pull request has been placed on the maintainer queue by YaelDillies. |
leanprover-community-mathlib4-bot
added
ready-to-merge
mathlib-bors bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 6, 2024
There is no need to write `(q(some_lemma))`, `q(some_lemma)` already has the right precedence. This also removes some `by exact`s that were either cargo-culted, or fixed by a recent change to Lean / Quote4.
|
Build failed (retrying...): |
mathlib-bors bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 6, 2024
There is no need to write `(q(some_lemma))`, `q(some_lemma)` already has the right precedence. This also removes some `by exact`s that were either cargo-culted, or fixed by a recent change to Lean / Quote4.
|
Pull request successfully merged into master. Build succeeded: |
mathlib-bors
bot
changed the title
q() notationq() notation
atarnoam
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 9, 2024
There is no need to write `(q(some_lemma))`, `q(some_lemma)` already has the right precedence. This also removes some `by exact`s that were either cargo-culted, or fixed by a recent change to Lean / Quote4.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
There is no need to write
(q(some_lemma)),q(some_lemma)already has the right precedence. This also removes someby exacts that were either cargo-culted, or fixed by a recent change to Lean / Quote4.