Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Added sample for snaphot #878
Added sample for snaphot #878
Changes from 1 commit
f5c7a8a
ab86f48
b5b7b86
4d08980
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
read_f
andread_s
are abstractions of a single primitiveread
operations. It would be nice to write the sample in this manner.read
as a primitive yield procedure with the natural specificationread_f
andread_s
as abstractions ofread
with their current specifications.read_f
would be a yield procedure that callsread
and refines the atomic action you have already written.read_s
would be similar.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Will procedure
read
have no body, and will it refine an action that reads the value in memory and returns the value?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Note that there is no yield procedure that calls
write
. This means that if you were to declare any yield invariants in this file, they would not be checked for interference againstwrite
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There is pattern in this file that is common in Civl programs. There is a single yield procedure that refines a particular atomic action (although it is allowed for many yield procedures to refine the same action). In such situations, I tend to follow a consistent way of declaring each such pair of a yield procedure and an action---write them together in a consistent order, either always procedure followed by action or the other way round.
Since this pattern is so common, it may be helpful for reducing syntactic clutter to provide each such pair with a single syntactic declaration such as the following:
The syntax above would allow both the yield procedure and the action to share a single interface declaration.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yes, this syntax makes sense. Has it been implemented?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No, this syntax does not exist right now.