Skip to content

Agda PR #7322 compatibility #2432

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

Merged
merged 325 commits into from
Jul 10, 2024
Merged

Agda PR #7322 compatibility #2432

merged 325 commits into from
Jul 10, 2024

Conversation

jespercockx
Copy link
Member

This PR contains the necessary changes for the experimental branch to be compatible with agda/agda#7322 once it is merged.

The reason for the large number of commits here is that I decided to also bring experimental up to date with the current master, since it seems to be lagging behind at the moment.

Taneb and others added 30 commits July 6, 2023 09:34
* Eliminate many propositional equality imports

* Fix merge conflict in Data.Bool.Properties

Co-authored-by: G. Allais <[email protected]>

---------

Co-authored-by: G. Allais <[email protected]>
To fix agda/agda#6654, we've decided that large indices will no longer
be allowed by default. There is an infective flag `--large-indices` to
bring them back, but none of the uses of large indices in the standard
library were essential: to avoid complicated mutually-recursive PRs
across repos, I adjusted the levels to check with `--no-large-indices`
instead of adding the flag to the modules that used them.
* Simplify some `Relation.Binary` imports

* Format

* Better naming scheme

* Fix tests

* Merge issues
* Simplify leftover `Function` imports

* `Function` -> `Function.Base`

Co-authored-by: G. Allais <[email protected]>

---------

Co-authored-by: G. Allais <[email protected]>
* Simplify more `Data.Product` import to `Data.Product.Base`

* Missed an import
…#2019)

* Simplify import of `Data.List.Relation.Binary.Pointwise` in agda-stdl

* rectifications on Data.List.Relation.Binary.Pointwise import

* rectifications on Data.List.Relation.Binary.Pointwise import

* Delete weights-README.dot

* Delete weight.png

* Delete README.dot
* Simplify more `Data.Product` import to `Data.Product.Base`

* Simplify more `Data.Product` import to `Data.Product.Base`

* Indent
lexvanderstoep and others added 8 commits June 16, 2024 12:01
* Update LICENSE year

* Remove extraneous 'i'

---------

Co-authored-by: Lex van der Stoep <[email protected]>
* additional proofs and patterns in `Data.Nat.Properties`

* added two projections; refactored `pad*` operations

* `CHANGELOG`

* removed one more use

* removed final uses of `<″-offset` outside `Data.Nat.Base|Properties`

* rename `≤-proof` to `m≤n⇒∃[o]m+o≡n`

* removed new pattern synonyms

* interim commit: deprecate everything!

* add guarded monus; make arguments more irrelevant

* fixed up `CHANGELOG`

* propagate use of irrelevance

* tidy up deprecations; reinstate `s<″s⁻¹` for `Data.Fin.Properties`

* tightened up the deprecation story

* paragraph on use of `pattern` synonyms

* removed `import`

* Update CHANGELOG.md

Fix refs to Algebra.Definitions.RawMagma

* Update Base.agda

Fix refs. to Algebra.Definitions.RawMagma

* inlined guarded monus definition in property

* remove comment about guarded monus
…ary.Decidable.Core` (#2405)

* fixes #2059 on the model of #2336

* fixed `import` dependencies

* simplified `import` dependencies

* final tweak

* `CHANGELOG`
* Make the main home of `decToMaybe` be `Relation.Nullary.Decidable.Core`, but
deprecate the one in `Data.Maybe.Base` instead of removing it entirely.
Fix the library accordingly.

Note that this forces `Relation.Nullary.Decidable.Core` to use `Agda.Builtin.Maybe`
to avoid a cyclic import. This can be fixed once the deprecation is done.

* Update src/Relation/Nullary/Decidable/Core.agda

Good idea.

Co-authored-by: G. Allais <[email protected]>

* simplified the deprecation

* `CHANGELOG`

* narrowed import too far

* tweak a couple of the solvers for consistency, as per suggestions.

* chnage to `public` re-export of `Relation.Nullary.Decidable.Core.decToMaybe`

* Revert "chnage to `public` re-export of `Relation.Nullary.Decidable.Core.decToMaybe`"

This reverts commit 256a505.

* `fix-whitespace`

* simplify `import`s

* make consistent with `Idempotent` case

* tidy up

* instead of an alias, open public so that Agda knows these really are the same. This is a better deprecation strategy.

* rename(provisional)+deprecate

* knock-on

* knock-on: refactor via `dec⇒maybe`

* deprecation via delegation

* fix `CHANGELOG`

---------

Co-authored-by: G. Allais <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: James McKinna <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: jamesmckinna <[email protected]>
* fixes #2411

* now via local -defined auxiliaries
* Tidy up CHANGELOG in preparation for v2.1 release candidate

* Fixed WHITESPACE

* Fixed James' feedback and improved alphabetical order
* fixes #2400: use explicit quantification

* fix knock-ons
…2123) (#2365)" (#2423)

This reverts commit 438f9ed.

Specifically, it restores `with`-based definitions of the
`Decidable`-definable functions on `List`s, incl. `filter`
Fixes #2415
@jamesmckinna
Copy link
Contributor

Suggest pausing this until after the v2.1 release?
(At least if I understand things correctly)
That's probably the best time to consider master as stable, and before the v2.2 cycle begins?

@gallais
Copy link
Member

gallais commented Jul 6, 2024

Suggest pausing this until after the v2.1 release?

experimental is meant to be compatible with Agda dev so no the changes should be integrated.
If you mean, we should wait on updating the branch, that's another matter but I think we've always
been happy to (losely) track the master changes whenever anyone can be bothered to merge the
branch into experimental.

@andreasabel
Copy link
Member

I updated the Agda commit hash for the experimental branch in the CI so that it builds the latest Agda (needed for this PR).

@andreasabel
Copy link
Member

I made a new label "Agda compatibility" for these kinds of additions. Std-lib tsars, feel free to modify this label to your liking.

Merging this now so Agda can be restored to tracking experimental.

@andreasabel andreasabel self-assigned this Jul 10, 2024
@andreasabel andreasabel merged commit 96d4477 into experimental Jul 10, 2024
11 checks passed
@andreasabel andreasabel deleted the issue7322-compat branch July 10, 2024 08:43
@MatthewDaggitt MatthewDaggitt added upstream Changes induced by Agda upstream and removed Agda compatibility labels Jul 11, 2024
@MatthewDaggitt
Copy link
Contributor

I made a new label "Agda compatibility" for these kinds of additions. Std-lib tsars, feel free to modify this label to your liking.

I've been using the upstream label for these.

@jamesmckinna
Copy link
Contributor

Happy for a coarse-grained labelling philosophy, but I might prefer experimental, with upstream (typically also instances of status:blocked-by-issue) reserved for Agda-specific things that otherwise affect an issue/PR... mostly because I don't tend to push PRs to the experimental branch...;-)

@MatthewDaggitt MatthewDaggitt added this to the v2.2.1 milestone Aug 20, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
upstream Changes induced by Agda upstream
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.