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
nullable is ignored for arguments of model methods #3186
Comments
unp1
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Oct 19, 2023
unp1
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Oct 19, 2023
…fiers to return type declaration of model methods
unp1
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Oct 28, 2023
unp1
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Oct 28, 2023
…fiers to return type declaration of model methods
unp1
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 10, 2023
unp1
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 10, 2023
…fiers to return type declaration of model methods
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Description
When defining a model method with a nullable argument like
it seems KeY ignores the
nullable
annotation.For example, this can be observed when loading the contract for the model method itself, an accessible clause thereof or when applying the rule "Use Dependency Contract" on this model method: They all look the same as if
nullable
is omitted and contain(¬n = null)«impl»
.Reproducible
always
Steps to reproduce
(¬n = null)«impl»
To understand where this is a problem for me:
Note that this particular proof could be closed simply by not using the dependency contract and instead expanding the definition of foo(). However, this is not always (easily) possible in more complex proof situations.
Files: nullable.zip
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: