fix: have app unexpanders be considered before field notation #4071
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
On [Zulip](https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/270676-lean4/topic/Notation.20in.20namespace.20not.20showing.20in.20pp/near/437016468), Peter Nelson reported that notations that could be pretty printed with generalized field notation did not pretty print using the notation. This PR has app unexpanders be considered before generalized field notation. The complexity before was that we wanted to do parent projection collapse, which meant it was not safe to consider app unexpanders anymore. The new solution is to collapse parent projections only when actually considering field notation, which can be done because we can safely strip off projection syntax in an expression-directed way.
github-actions
bot
added
the
toolchain-available
leanprover-community-mathlib4-bot
added a commit
to leanprover-community/batteries
that referenced
this pull request
May 5, 2024
leanprover-community-mathlib4-bot
added a commit
to leanprover-community/mathlib4
that referenced
this pull request
May 5, 2024
leanprover-community-mathlib4-bot
added a commit
to leanprover-community/batteries
that referenced
this pull request
May 5, 2024
leanprover-community-mathlib4-bot
added a commit
to leanprover-community/mathlib4
that referenced
this pull request
May 5, 2024
leanprover-community-mathlib4-bot
added
the
builds-mathlib
|
Mathlib CI status (docs):
|
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 6, 2024
On [Zulip](https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/270676-lean4/topic/Notation.20in.20namespace.20not.20showing.20in.20pp/near/437016468), Peter Nelson reported that notations that could be pretty printed with generalized field notation did not pretty print using the intended notation. This PR makes it so that app unexpanders are considered before generalized field notation. The complexity before was that we wanted to do parent projection collapse, and since we did the collapse before pretty printing that argument, it meant it wasn't possible to do app unexpanders when there was a field notation candidate. The new solution is to collapse parent projections only when actually considering field notation, which can be done because we can safely strip off projection syntax in an expression-directed way. (cherry picked from commit 3bd2a74)
kim-em
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 6, 2024
On [Zulip](https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/270676-lean4/topic/Notation.20in.20namespace.20not.20showing.20in.20pp/near/437016468), Peter Nelson reported that notations that could be pretty printed with generalized field notation did not pretty print using the intended notation. This PR makes it so that app unexpanders are considered before generalized field notation. The complexity before was that we wanted to do parent projection collapse, and since we did the collapse before pretty printing that argument, it meant it wasn't possible to do app unexpanders when there was a field notation candidate. The new solution is to collapse parent projections only when actually considering field notation, which can be done because we can safely strip off projection syntax in an expression-directed way.
kim-em
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 21, 2024
On [Zulip](https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/270676-lean4/topic/Notation.20in.20namespace.20not.20showing.20in.20pp/near/437016468), Peter Nelson reported that notations that could be pretty printed with generalized field notation did not pretty print using the intended notation. This PR makes it so that app unexpanders are considered before generalized field notation. The complexity before was that we wanted to do parent projection collapse, and since we did the collapse before pretty printing that argument, it meant it wasn't possible to do app unexpanders when there was a field notation candidate. The new solution is to collapse parent projections only when actually considering field notation, which can be done because we can safely strip off projection syntax in an expression-directed way.
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.
On Zulip, Peter Nelson reported that notations that could be pretty printed with generalized field notation did not pretty print using the intended notation.
This PR makes it so that app unexpanders are considered before generalized field notation. The complexity before was that we wanted to do parent projection collapse, and since we did the collapse before pretty printing that argument, it meant it wasn't possible to do app unexpanders when there was a field notation candidate. The new solution is to collapse parent projections only when actually considering field notation, which can be done because we can safely strip off projection syntax in an expression-directed way.