Current `anti_unify_with_constraints` may not make sense

Open
#4,219 0 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Assessment

Difficulty
5/5
Estimated time
Over a week
Newbie friendliness
25/100
Issue type
Refactor
Clarity
Needs clarification
Activity status
Stale
Tech stack
python
Domain
compilers

Research direction

Locate anti_unify_with_constraints and trace how it computes convex covers. Read the summarizer paper context and compare the treatment of original constraints with the generalized term and disjunct-specific implications. The work is done when the intended constraint-retention rule is agreed and reflected in the implementation and relevant checks.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Description

pyk

While writing the summarizer paper, I realized that perhaps how we're computing convex covers may not make sense.

We are building the implication which specializes the constraints to one or the other side of the disjunct.
But we also are including the original constraints, without generalizing them in the same way the term has been generalized.

Likely, we should not be keeping any constraints, or at least only keeping constraints for variables that are passed through unchanged to the new generated antiunifier.

Dominant language
Python
Stars
591
Forks
163
No merged PRs in 30d

Contributor guide

Open the contributing guide

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

More from runtimeverification/k

All issues in runtimeverification/k

Similar issues

More Python issues

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.