Skip to content

Release 2.3#100

Merged
pmbittner merged 87 commits intomainfrom
develop
Apr 17, 2026
Merged

Release 2.3#100
pmbittner merged 87 commits intomainfrom
develop

Conversation

@pmbittner
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@pmbittner pmbittner commented Apr 14, 2026

ibbem added 30 commits July 10, 2025 20:37
This is the first definition has come to my mind. It works at least for
ADT < CCC intuitively.
I expect `2CC < CCC` so `ADT < CCC` should follow using transitivity.
As ≤Size is not total, <Size is not transitive without requiring ≤Size.
Moreover, ≱Size is not antisymmetric. Note that ≱Size is ¬ ≤Size with
the arguments flipped and the negation moved inside.
This makes it easier to use because the artifact type doesn't need to be
applied when invoking `≤Size`. Furthermore, this enables proofs of
`≱Size` to fix a single artifact type, for example the natural numbers,
and automatically have the inhabitants it needs.

The order between the quantifier over `n` and `A` doesn't have a big
impact. On the one hand, the chosen order allows `≱Size` to use
different artifact types for each `n`. However, it doesn't change the
relation inhabitants if they are swapped because there exists a type
with enough elements (i.e., union of all `A` ranging all `n`s) that can
be fixed and then only a subset of the artifacts can be used for a
specific `n`. On the other hand, `≤Size` is a `Set` and, thus, can't be
inspected if the order is changed. This specific order is chosen purely
as it's more convenient for pattern matching (e.g., one less `with`
clause in case of `≤Size`).
Previously, these where not inferred correctly, but now it works™.
This reduces duplication and allows refactoring of 𝔸.
This allows to easily add more fields.
ibbem and others added 7 commits April 16, 2026 13:49
The name was misleading as every variant has a root artifact (although
it doesn't have any children). The new name also incorporates existing
software product line terminology.
@pmbittner pmbittner changed the title Release Release 2.3 Apr 17, 2026
@pmbittner pmbittner marked this pull request as ready for review April 17, 2026 07:02
@pmbittner pmbittner merged commit 46aae2b into main Apr 17, 2026
2 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants