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

chore: check whether pointer equality implies structural equality in grind #6451

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 26, 2024

Conversation

leodemoura
Copy link
Member

This PR checks whether in the internal state of the grind tactic pointer equality implies structural equality.

…`grind`

This PR checks whether in the internal state of the `grind` tactic
pointer equality implies structural equality.
@leodemoura leodemoura added the changelog-no Do not include this PR in the release changelog label Dec 26, 2024
@leodemoura leodemoura enabled auto-merge December 26, 2024 03:35
@github-actions github-actions bot temporarily deployed to lean-lang.org/lean4/doc December 26, 2024 03:43 Inactive
@leodemoura leodemoura added this pull request to the merge queue Dec 26, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added the toolchain-available A toolchain is available for this PR, at leanprover/lean4-pr-releases:pr-release-NNNN label Dec 26, 2024
@leanprover-community-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Mathlib CI status (docs):

  • ❗ Batteries/Mathlib CI will not be attempted unless your PR branches off the nightly-with-mathlib branch. Try git rebase 0ebe9e5ba3c1603cb42f1180a6584bf130ae6ce5 --onto f9f8abe2a3eb0591cef3769e2a51717fb2b9a166. (2024-12-26 03:54:21)

Merged via the queue into master with commit bdcb791 Dec 26, 2024
18 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
changelog-no Do not include this PR in the release changelog toolchain-available A toolchain is available for this PR, at leanprover/lean4-pr-releases:pr-release-NNNN
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants