Benoît Legat

> I didn't do this, because it could be interpreted as a breaking change. Breaking change for which function ? We are changing it to `_OpGreaterThan` before giving it to...

Indeed, the function could be used outside of a JuMP macro. I'd say it is minor. `_intercept_operator` is complicated or code too much just to accomplish to accomplish exactly the...

I still think this complicating things too much just for such a small breaking change. Users are expected to implement `operator_to_set`, we never said that calling it would always return...

I'd prefer to name things for what they are rather than what they are used for. What about calling the set `Nonnegative` and saying that `@constraint(model, a - b in...

How about `GreaterThanZero` ?

> This needs something similar to #3797 What do you mean ?

The adjacency matrix is a matrix of boolean JuMP variables and the nodes are fixed ? Can't you do a sort of MAX-FLOW/MIN-CUT formulation ? Nodes are unreachable is equivalent...

Yes, we tried RigidBodyDynamics with SymPy but then ended up using Symbolics.jl We had a similar issue (see also https://github.com/JuliaGeometry/Quaternions.jl/issues/128 which shows that it can get tricky) and we ended...

`AbstractPolynomialLike` does not subtype `Number` for the same reason `JuMP.AbstractJuMPScalar` does not : because it does not satisfy many of the assumptions that are usually satisfied by `Number`, see https://github.com/jump-dev/MutableArithmetics.jl/issues/47...

If this is causing a lot of issues, I can change `Any` to `Union{Number,MutableArithmetics.AbstractMutable,AbstractArray}` which I think would cover most use cases.