Skip to content
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

[ refactor ] Symmetry of Bijection as a consequence of properties of a given Surjective function #2583

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jamesmckinna
Copy link
Contributor

@jamesmckinna jamesmckinna commented Feb 13, 2025

Alternative version of #2569 which dispenses with much of the deprecation cruft, in favour of badging this as a bug fix.
No separate module Section added, in favour of folding everything into the definitions of Function.Structures.IsBijection and Function.Bundles.Bijection.

NB. there may now be some further redundancy that could be pruned out: manifest fields, or Properties?

Verified

This commit was created on GitHub.com and signed with GitHub’s verified signature. The key has expired.
@jamesmckinna jamesmckinna added the status: duplicate The main contents of the issue or PR already exists in another issue or PR. label Feb 13, 2025
@jamesmckinna
Copy link
Contributor Author

@JacquesCarette which of this and #2569 do you prefer? We should (probably) only merge one of them...

@jamesmckinna
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'll only return to the merge conflicts once we choose between this v3.0 version, and the clunkier v2.3 #2569

@JacquesCarette
Copy link
Contributor

which of this and #2569 do you prefer?

There's a lot in common between them, so I'm having a hard time spotting exactly where the differences are?

@jamesmckinna
Copy link
Contributor Author

which of this and #2569 do you prefer?

There's a lot in common between them, so I'm having a hard time spotting exactly where the differences are?

The main difference is that

  • the v2.3 version carries around a lot of extra cruft, in order to be backwards-compatible
  • the v3.0 is much more streamlined, as I was able to jettison all that cruft

This was the one that made me seriously think we should simply leapfrog to a full, breaking, v3.0... and I am still considering withdrawing the v2.3 one as too compromised to be worth the effort? Hence the request for comment.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
addition breaking bug deprecation refactoring status: duplicate The main contents of the issue or PR already exists in another issue or PR.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants