We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
As reported by @b-mehta on Zulip in https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/113488-general/topic/.60open.20finset.60.20changes.20truth.20of.20goal/near/304982461 it is possible that simply opening a namespace which contains overloaded function names can cause the argument types to be elaborated differently, even if the overloaded function does not apply
def foo1.bar (x y : ℤ) := x ≠ y def foo2.bar (x y : ℕ) := true open foo1 def my_statement1 (k : ℕ) := bar (0 : ℤ) (k - 0) open foo2 def my_statement (k : ℕ) := bar (0 : ℤ) (k - 0) set_option pp.all true #print my_statement1 #print my_statement example : my_statement 1 := begin rw [my_statement], simp only [foo1.bar, int.coe_nat_one], intro h, cases h, end example : ¬ my_statement 1 := begin rw [my_statement], simp [foo1.bar, int.coe_nat_zero], end
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
No branches or pull requests
As reported by @b-mehta on Zulip in https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/113488-general/topic/.60open.20finset.60.20changes.20truth.20of.20goal/near/304982461
it is possible that simply opening a namespace which contains overloaded function names can cause the argument types to be elaborated differently, even if the overloaded function does not apply
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: