[gecode-users] documentation for member propagator

[Christian Schulte]

As I said before, the argument is there. Always. But doxygen sometimes does
not take the declaration (where the optional argument is and must be there)
but the definition (where the optional argument cannot be there) for
generating the docs.

Precede for integer is domain consistent in Gecode and for the chain variant
it is not (as it decomposes into the integer variant).

Cheers
Christian

--
Christian Schulte, KTH, web.it.kth.se/~cschulte/


-----Original Message-----
From: users-bounces at gecode.org [mailto:users-bounces at gecode.org] On Behalf
Of Kish Shen
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 5:43 PM
To: users at gecode.org
Subject: Re: [gecode-users] documentation for member propagator

On 26/09/2011 11:50, Christian Schulte wrote:
> Right, all constraint post functions for integer constraints have the 
> optional IntConLevel argument as last argument even though only one 
> consistency level might be supported.
>

I am suggesting it might be a good idea to always describe the IntConLev
argument in the reference documentation. At the moment there is the "dummy"
argument for member, and it would be nice to add IntConLev icl = ICL_DEF as
there are in other constraints, and to say what value is supported for icl,
even if it is only one. In some cases, such as for some of the element
constraints, and for precede, there is a IntCOnLev = ICL_DEF, but no
description of the values available. I have in general assumed that this
means that the constraint does not achieve any of the defined propagation
level, as I think you told me for the scheduling constraints, but I am not
so sure this is the always the case: for element, some of the variants do
specify the IntConLev, and ICL_BND and ICL_DOM are available, so does these
levels also apply to the element where IntConLev is not described?

For precede, the Global Constraint Catalog specify a domain consistent
filtering for the constraints (int_value_precede and
int_value_precede_chain), and I suspect this is what the Gecode version of
the constraint achieves, is this the case?

Cheers,

--
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole
use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or
authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply
e-mail and delete all copies of this message.
Cisco Systems Limited (Company Number: 02558939), is registered in England
and Wales with its registered office at 1 Callaghan Square, Cardiff, South
Glamorgan CF10 5BT.

_______________________________________________
Gecode users mailing list
users at gecode.org
https://www.gecode.org/mailman/listinfo/gecode-users