-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 43
Non real solvability #3798
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Non real solvability #3798
Conversation
henrikt-ma
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Main concern is the lack of relation to switching condition evaluability.
Co-authored-by: Henrik Tidefelt <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Henrik Tidefelt <[email protected]>
| Have the same number of equations in each branch, where the number of equations is defined as in \cref{local-equation-size}. | ||
| Absence of an \lstinline!else!-branch is treated as having a branch with zero equations. | ||
| \item | ||
| Non-\lstinline!Real! equations in the \lstinline!if!-equation branches shall have component-references (or a list of them) as their left-hand-side. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I also realized that we need to distinguish between simple and non-simple equations:
| Non-\lstinline!Real! equations in the \lstinline!if!-equation branches shall have component-references (or a list of them) as their left-hand-side. | |
| Non-\lstinline!Real! simple equality equations (see \cref{simple-equality-equations}) in the \lstinline!if!-equation branches shall have component-references (or a list of them) as their left-hand-side. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The "list of them" was for non-simple, so if we only mention simple it would be:
| Non-\lstinline!Real! equations in the \lstinline!if!-equation branches shall have component-references (or a list of them) as their left-hand-side. | |
| Non-\lstinline!Real! simple equality equations (see \cref{simple-equality-equations}) in the \lstinline!if!-equation branches shall have component-references as their left-hand-side. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm… this is one of the examples in \cref{simple-equality-equations}:
(out1, out2, out3) = function_name(inexpr1, inexpr2);
What am I missing?
| Absence of an \lstinline!else!-branch is treated as having a branch with zero equations. | ||
| \item | ||
| Non-\lstinline!Real! equations in the \lstinline!if!-equation branches shall have component-references (or a list of them) as their left-hand-side. | ||
| Any subscripts for such component-references must be evaluable. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We also need something for the non-simple equations:
| Any subscripts for such component-references must be evaluable. | |
| Any subscripts for such component-references must be evaluable. | |
| Any \lstinline!for!- and \lstinline!if!-equations in the \lstinline!if!-equation branches shall have evaluable controlling conditions, and contain equations which fullfil these requirements recursively. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To me the recursive part worked automatically: for-equations shall always have evaluable conditions, and nested if-equations containing non-Real equations follow from just applying the rule for that if-equation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Besides the requirements on these equations, I also wanted to make clear that they may qualify for the matching of branches, despite not being given in simple equality equation form.
According to decision (as far as I can see).
Closes #3779