I am working on a geometry problem with the OR-Tools constraint programming tools.
Could one of you tell me the procedure to create a custom constraint?
I dont really understand demon, model visitor behavior...
Also, can any type of constraint be inserted?
Thank you in advance
To write a constraint, you need to understand that during search, variables are not instantiated (domain is reduced to a single value). Therefore, calling Value() does not work.
You can access the current domain (min, max, list of possible values, and then you can write deduction rule from there).
See https://github.com/google/or-tools/blob/stable/examples/cpp/dobble_ls.cc.
Now, the CP solver is replaced by the CP-SAT solver, which does not allow writing custom constraints. In that case, maybe you can express you constraints with boolean logic, and arithmetic operators.
Related
BLUF: I have a predicate which takes as arguments an instance of a signature and a set of instances of the same signature. Upon generating instances of the model, I'd like to pass instances of the signature to the predicate, but am at a loss for how to pass a set of instances, if it is even possible.
Alloy's Evaluator does not appear to be well-documented, unless I've missed it. I have Daniel Jackson's book, have done the tutuorial, and found various other resources online, but no one really seems to address how to use the Evaluator.
I've tried notation like:
myPred[instance$0,set(instance$1,instance$2)]
and
myPred[instance$0,set[instance$1,instance$2]]
and
myPred[instance$0,(instance$1,instance$2)]
and
myPred[instance$0,[instance$1,instance$2]]
The Evaluator doesn't like any of them. Is it possible to pass a set of instances? If so, how do I do it? Thanks for the help!
So, in usual fashion for me, almost as soon as I asked the question, I realized the answer (or at least a way to do what I wanted to). I simply used the union operator "+" to pass the set.
myPred[instance$0, instance$1 + instance$2]
Sorry for the inconvenience, but maybe this will help someone else!
Although you can actually itemize any kind of data structure to fit it into a scalar variable, sigilless variables might have some intrinsic value, since they are actually shapeless, to be used as class attributes. However, there seems to be no way to do so, has \.a does not work, has .\a either. A has $!a can probably cover most of what we could achieve with sigilless variables, but would there be an actual way to use them as attributes?
There's currently no way to have a sigilless attribute. It's also not, so far as I'm aware, currently under active consideration for inclusion in a future Raku version. The most obvious design considerations, were it to be proposed, would be:
The semantics of my \foo = ... are single static assignment. It's quite clear what that means on a lexically scoped symbol. It's less clear what it would mean in a class declaration, and how it would interact with the instantiation workflow. For example, there'd be no equivalent of the :$!foo signature syntax that can be convenient in BUILD/TWEAK.
The use of a twigil implies that it follows a sigil. The twigils without that are potentially ambiguous, depending on context. Further, it'd be odd to allow the . case only for the purpose of declaring that we want a sigilless attribute to get an accessor.
It would break the rule that you can always find access to the instance state by looking for a ! twigil, which would be a pity.
I am very new to Haskell, so sorry if this is a basic question, or a question founded on shaky understanding
Type level programming is a fascinating idea to me. I think I get the basic premise, but I feel like there is another side to it that is fuzzy to me. I get that the idea is to bring logic and computation into the compiletime instead of runtime, using types. This way you turn what is normally runtime logic/state/data into static logic, e.g. the size of collections.
So I get that for example you can have type level natural numbers, and do type level arithmetic on those natural numbers, and all this calculation and type safety is going on at compile time.
But what does such arithmetic imply at runtime? Especially since Haskell has full type erasure. So for example
If I concatenate two type level lists, then does the type level safety imply something about the behavior or performance of that concatenation at runtime? Or does the type level programming aspect only have meaning at compile time, when the programmer is grappling the code and putting things together?
Or if I have two type level numbers, and then multiply them, what does that mean at runtime? If these operations on large numbers are slow at compile time, are they instantaneous at runtime?
Or if we implemented type level RSA and then use it, what does that even mean at runtime?
Is it purely a compiletime safety/coherence tool? or does type level programming buy us anything for the runtime too? Is the logic and arithmetic 'paid for at compile time' or merely 'assured at compile time' (if that even makes sense)?
As you rightly say, Haskell [without weird extensions] has full type erasure. So that means anything computed purely at the type level is erased at runtime.
However, to do useful stuff, you connect the type-level stuff with your value-level stuff to provide useful properties.
Suppose, for example, you want to write a function that takes a pair of lists, treats them as mathematical vectors, and performs a vector dot-product with them. Now the dot-product is only defined on pairs of vectors of the same size. So if the size of the vectors doesn't match, you can't return a sensible answer.
Without type-level programming, your options are:
Require that the caller always supplies vectors of the same dimension, and cheerfully return gibberish if that requirement is not met. (I.e., ignore the problem.)
Perform an explicit check at run-time, and throw an exception or return Nothing or similar if the dimension don't match.
With type-level programming, you can make it so that if the dimensions don't match, the code does not compile! So that means at run-time you don't need to care about mismatched dimension, because... well, if your code is running, then the dimension cannot be mismatched.
The types have all been erased by this point, but you are still guaranteed that your code cannot crash / return gibberish, because the compiler has checked that that cannot happen.
It's really the same as the ordinary checks the compiler does to make sure you don't try to multiply an integer by a string or something. The types are all erased before runtime, and yet the code does not crash.
Of course, to do a dot-product, we merely have to check that two numbers are equal. We don't need any arithmetic yet. But it should be clear that to check whether the dimensions of our vectors match, we need to know the dimensions of our vectors. And that means that any operations that change the dimension of our vectors needs to do compile-time calculations, so the compiler can know the result size and check it satisfies the requirements.
You can also do more elaborate stuff. Somewhere I saw a library that lets you define a client/server communications protocol, but because it encodes the protocol into ludicrously complicated type signatures [which the compiler automatically infers], it can statically prove that the client and server implement exactly the same protocol (i.e., no bugs with the server not handling one of the messages the client can send). The types get erased at runtime, but we still know the wire protocol can't go wrong.
Let's say I have class A with associations to classes X, Y, and Z, respectively. I need to indicate that only one of these associations may be instantiated for any given instance of class A (so, an xor constraint). I know how to do this if the constraint is just across two associations. Obviously I can just make three seperate xor constraints (X-Y, X-Z, Y-Z) but I'm wondering if there is a better/cleaner/proper way to do it?
edit: The multiplicity constraints on the respective associations are not the same. Using an abstract class or interface will not work. Furthermore, a note is insufficient. I need to use some sort of formalized structure, preferably something standardized (e.g. by OMG) to express this because I am programmatically processing the model elements (i.e. it isn't just a picture). I understand how the underlying model for UML provides for this facility. It also specifies (though slightly vaguely) how it should be notated. I guess my main issue is, in fact, with finding a tool that allows me to make that notation. I don't think MagicDraw does so. I should have stated these things earlier.
FWIW, I'm using MagicDraw. It would be a nice bonus if the I could do this in a way that MagicDraw actually understood. I can live with it if that isn't possible.
The xor constraint is just a stylized and rather under-specified constraint for the 2-way case.
You can define an explicit constraint (in Complete OCL) as:
context A
inv OnlyAorBorC: A->size() + B->Size() + C->size() <= 1
MagicDraw may allow you to specify a similar contextual Constraint on A.
If "X", "Y" and/or "Z" can be somehow generalized (I mean, if you not doing this puraly for a conditional flow control), you can make an interface (or and abstract class) "I" for example, and make "X", "Y" and "Z" implement this interface. Then, you put an association with multiplicity 1 between A and the interface I.
See the diagram below:
Edit: The example above doesn't work in the case of A having different cardinalities between X, Y and Z. For this case, the only way that I can see is use an UML Constraint to restrict those relationships. You can define a Constraint in UML putting some OCL expression between curly braces. E. g.
Here, account owner is either Person or Corporation and this {xor} is predefined UML constraint.
I'm not sure about the details of your cardinalities requirements but, a combination between this {xor} and the interface example that I gave might be enough. At least it gives you a little bit more of options, like:
If you need to know more about the UML constraints subject, I got this example from uml-diagrams.org: http://www.uml-diagrams.org/constraint.html
If I design a new language with type inference, no explicit types and no class inheritance support and then want to add inheritance, what are the minimum extra hints to the compiler needed to resolve type ambiguity when adding the feature?
Are class names needed?
EDIT
The type-tainting is traced through assignments throughout the program including between functions.
OK in the starting language, you have class names like MyTypeName1 from stuff like:
myVariable1 = New(MyTypeName1)
myVariable2 = New(MyTypeName2)
And types MyTypeName1 and MyTypeName2 are inferred for myVariable1 and myVariable2 respectively. But then if we want to enhance the language to support:
MyVariable3 = myVariable1
MyVariable3 = myVariable2
which can be traced through the code (myVariable3 now can contain two types which presumably are in a hierarchy).
EDIT
The members of MyTypeName1 and MyTypeName2 are inferred from statements like:
myVariable1.name="Fred"
myVariable2.name="JX3009"
What if the name member in MyTypeName1 and in MyTypeName2 are not to be in a common base class? What if we want a different name property in MyTypeName1 and MyTypeName2 and none in a base class? Is there an elegant way to tell the compiler what to do / how to handle? (The idea with type inference is to reduce typing not increase it...?)
Or do we need to specify the hierarchy explicitly?
This field is loaded with undecidability results, but I've forgotten them all. If you're willing to conflate inheritance with subtyping, then you have no problems. If you want something more ambitious (and it sounds as if you do), I'd have a look at
Benjamin Pierce's textbook Types and Programming Languages, which will cover the basic results for width and depth subtyping and how they do or do not play nicely with type inference. (I'd look myself but my copy is at work.)
François Pottier's PhD dissertation.
Another name to check out is Joe Wells, who's been responsible for a lot of undecidability results in type systems and programming languages.
What are the minimum extra hints to the compiler needed to resolve type ambiguity?
If there is a unique answer to this question, I will be very surprised. I think it far more likely that this is one of those language-design problems where there are a bunch of solutions which are strictly incomparable as far as minimality and annotations go.