Update docs on equivalence between gradual types #1965
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
…t is an equivalence relation
|
All commit authors signed the Contributor License Agreement. |
MatthewMckee4
changed the title
Contributor
Author
|
I have signed that now, i'm not sure how the check can be rerun |
Member
|
Closing and reopening the PR to see if that nudges CLA bot. |
Member
|
Looks like that worked! |
carljm
approved these changes
Apr 10, 2025
Member
carljm
left a comment
carljm
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks good to me. I don't think it's a substantive change, so I don't think it requires a full typing council approval process, but I'll wait a day or two before merging in case anyone else wants to weigh in.
JelleZijlstra
approved these changes
Apr 10, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Update docs to include that the relation on "equivalent" gradual types is an equivalence relation.
Or i guess more explicitly state that it is an equivalence relation.