Skip to content

Displayed functor cleanup #493

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

Open
wants to merge 10 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Displayed functor cleanup #493

wants to merge 10 commits into from

Conversation

TOTBWF
Copy link
Collaborator

@TOTBWF TOTBWF commented May 10, 2025

Description

Working on fibred limits and some of the design for fibred functors was starting to annoy me. Not sure what I
was thinking when I first wrote this!

Checklist

Before submitting a merge request, please check the items below:

  • I've read the contributing guidelines.
  • The imports of new modules have been sorted with support/sort-imports.hs (or nix run --experimental-features nix-command -f . sort-imports).
  • All new code blocks have "agda" as their language.

If your change affects many files without adding substantial content, and
you don't want your name to appear on those pages (for example, treewide
refactorings or reformattings), start the commit message and PR title with chore:.

TOTBWF added 6 commits May 10, 2025 13:09
Someone who will not be named was not thinking clearly
when defining displayed functors, and defined vertical
functors and displayed functors as separate records.
We can unify these two notions and provide alternative
compositions instead.
I've wrapped is-fibred-functor in a no-eta record: this
results in better inference.
Unless we make Id ∘ Id definitionally equal to
Id, we can't unify vertical composition of displayed
functors with composition. This means that we still
need to have a separate notion of vertical adjunction.
I removed Vertical-fibred-functor and Fibred-functor: these
are mostly just syntactic noise, and will be best served by
using some sort of wide sub-bicategory construction. However,
this requires us to change comprehension categories a bit.
@TOTBWF TOTBWF requested review from ncfavier and plt-amy May 10, 2025 19:02
@Lavenza
Copy link
Member

Lavenza commented May 10, 2025

ncfavier
ncfavier previously approved these changes May 11, 2025
Copy link
Member

@plt-amy plt-amy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

at github why does Ctrl+Enter add to a new review instead of submitting a single comment

@TOTBWF
Copy link
Collaborator Author

TOTBWF commented May 23, 2025

This dropped off my radar a bit, but have some other stuff is touching this part of the code. Is this good to merge?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants