[Merged by Bors] - chore(Analysis/InnerProductSpace): remove misleading comment - #42123
[Merged by Bors] - chore(Analysis/InnerProductSpace): remove misleading comment#42123felixpernegger wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
PR summary d287a74723Import changes for modified filesNo significant changes to the import graph Import changes for all files
|
|
LGTM, thanks! |
|
🚀 Pull request has been placed on the maintainer queue by mcdoll. |
|
I tweaked the PR description quite a bit - LGTM now. Thanks! |
|
@grunweg bors bugged |
|
bors merge |
The comment makes no sense any more: `noncomputable section` checks first if a def is computable, and only if not, makes it noncomputable. So `noncomputable section` wouldn't make a difference here (for an example where `noncomputable def` vs `noncomputable section` makes a difference see [#mathlib4 > noncomputable section @ 💬](https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/287929-mathlib4/topic/noncomputable.20section/near/609434583)). Looking at the git history, it used to be marked `noncomputable def`, but that was removed in #40091 without comment. This is not a performance issue any more, so the comment can just be removed. Co-authored-by: Batixx <s59fpern@uni-bonn.de>
|
Pull request successfully merged into master. Build succeeded: |
The comment makes no sense any more:
noncomputable sectionchecks first if a def is computable, and only if not, makes it noncomputable. Sononcomputable sectionwouldn't make a difference here (for an example wherenoncomputable defvsnoncomputable sectionmakes a difference see #mathlib4 > noncomputable section @ 💬).Looking at the git history, it used to be marked
noncomputable def, but that was removed in #40091 without comment. This is not a performance issue any more, so the comment can just be removed.(I stumbled about this while reviewing #42122)