Implementation of invariant for capturing information from branching#6
Merged
Implementation of invariant for capturing information from branching#6
Conversation
a78d61e to
24018b6
Compare
Dudeldu
commented
May 31, 2022
FelixKrayer
reviewed
Jun 3, 2022
Collaborator
FelixKrayer
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can't say I fully understand what happens in base.ml... but if it works it might be fine
Owner
Author
|
I will give you a summary on how this works exactly on thursday in favour of distributing the knowledge among all of us |
brgr
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 16, 2022
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This allows to make use of information coming from branching e.g.:
One conceptional problem occurs once again here, that a user can not directly specify a range. Even code like
if (0. < a && a < 5), does not bound the interval, as the value always could as well betop. In addition both conditions are evaluated one after the other, which makes it impossible to take both "ending" values into account simultaneously. Therefore, all sub-evaluations as well as the last one result intop. The only way to prevent this, is actually assigning differentdoublevalues inside different branches to make the interval span the contained range.