You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
For now, we could simply deactivate these invariants. For the test cases there are not needed. But as a showcase for automatically generating JML they are quite sufficient.
But you also want to use these invariants outside of the scope of this record.
I would still prefer class axioms, which should become Taclets.
Also better, the introduction of named (static) invariants, which are then not automatically added, and the extension of \static_invariant_for(obj, name) to put them on the sequent.
My final suggestion would be:
//@ public explicit static invariant_free taut1: 1+1==2;
The explicit modifier (present in C++) marks that the invariant is not implicitly added to $inv (only possible with free inv), and need to grasp explicitly.
I would also say, we should a warning or synonym on axiom (and treat thi as an invariant_free).
This discussion was converted from issue #3800 on April 08, 2026 21:40.
Heading
Bold
Italic
Quote
Code
Link
Numbered list
Unordered list
Task list
Attach files
Mention
Reference
Menu
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
For now, we could simply deactivate these invariants. For the test cases there are not needed. But as a showcase for automatically generating JML they are quite sufficient.
But you also want to use these invariants outside of the scope of this record.
I would still prefer class axioms, which should become Taclets.
Also better, the introduction of named (static) invariants, which are then not automatically added, and the extension of
\static_invariant_for(obj, name)to put them on the sequent.My final suggestion would be:
The explicit modifier (present in C++) marks that the invariant is not implicitly added to
$inv(only possible with free inv), and need to grasp explicitly.I would also say, we should a warning or synonym on
axiom(and treat thi as aninvariant_free).Originally posted by @wadoon in #3758 (comment)
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions