Skip to content

Conversation

@andreiburdusa
Copy link
Contributor


Fixes #2020

Reviewer checklist
  • Test coverage: stack test --coverage
  • Public API documentation: stack haddock

@andreiburdusa andreiburdusa marked this pull request as ready for review August 21, 2020 09:40
Copy link
Contributor

@ttuegel ttuegel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This looks pretty good. Let's add one more test, where the Set has some opaque terms. We should do the same thing for Map, too.

, keyTerm, mapTerm :: !term
}

newtype In term = In { getIn :: InKeys term}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Let's call this InSet, just so it doesn't get confused with the other In type.

@andreiburdusa andreiburdusa requested a review from ttuegel August 24, 2020 15:32
@rv-jenkins rv-jenkins merged commit 1ced2ee into runtimeverification:master Aug 26, 2020
ttuegel added a commit to ttuegel/kore that referenced this pull request Sep 3, 2020
This reverts commit 1ced2ee.

The symbolic rules applied to the negative case of SET.in, but we need to keep
the duality between the negative and positive cases so that the SMT solver can
reason about them. (The SMT solver does not have any knowledge of SET.)
ttuegel added a commit to ttuegel/kore that referenced this pull request Sep 3, 2020
This reverts commit 1ced2ee.

The symbolic rules applied to the negative case, but not the positive case. We
need to keep the duality between negative and positive cases so that the SMT
solver can reason about them. (The SMT solver has no knowledge of SET.)
ttuegel added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 3, 2020
This reverts commit 1ced2ee.

The symbolic rules applied to the negative case, but not the positive case. We
need to keep the duality between negative and positive cases so that the SMT
solver can reason about them. (The SMT solver has no knowledge of SET.)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Symbolic rules for SET.in

3 participants