[gecode-users] BoolExpr example
cschulte at kth.se
Fri Nov 21 17:36:07 CET 2008
Well, Denys, remember this is C++... The reasoning that something should be
not necessary does not mean that you should do it. Constructing C++ programs
by reasoning leads to programs that will not compile (if you are lucky that
is, it might also miscompile).
But in this case this is a real deliberate decision to make reification
explicit. Without that the composition of reified linear expressions over
Boolean variables and Boolean expressions becomes slightly non-intuitive.
Then, the decision was: make reification explicit and overload post.
I still like it!
From: users-bounces at gecode.org [mailto:users-bounces at gecode.org] On Behalf
Of Denys Duchier
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 4:19 PM
To: users at gecode.org
Subject: Re: [gecode-users] BoolExpr example
"Christian Schulte" <cschulte at kth.se> writes:
>> 2) Could you explain in more detail what ~ does?
> The ~-operator takes a linear relation and reifies it (makes it a
>> 3) Likewise, what does tt() do?
> It enforces that a Boolean expression should be true. There is an
> corresponding function ff for enforcing it to be false.
>> 4) Under exactly what conditions does post() create a BoolVar?
> When the expression posted is a BoolExpr and not a BoolRel.
I have the nagging feeling that using "post" both for expressions and
for relations maybe a source of unnecessary complexity. Explicit
reification of a linear relation should typically not be required (it
can be deduced from the context of use).
Am I wrong in thinking that if we had "post" for relations and "epost"
for expressions, some of the current complexity could be made to go
Gecode users mailing list
users at gecode.org
More information about the gecode-users