Once I have a constraint problem, I would like to see if it is satisfiable. Based on the returned model (when it is sat) I would like to add assertions and then run the solver again. However, it seems like I am misunderstanding some of the types/values contained in the returned model. Consider the following example:
solv = z3.Solver()
n = z3.Int("n")
solv.add(n >= 42)
solv.check() # This is satisfiable
model = solv.model()
for var in model:
# do something
solv.add(var == model[var])
solv.check() # This is unsat
I would expect that after the loop i essentially have the two constraints n >= 42 and n == 42, assuming of course that z3 produces the model n=42 in the first call. Despite this, in the second call check() returns unsat. What am I missing?
Sidenote: when replacing solv.add(var == model[var]) with solv.add(var >= model[var]) I get a z3.z3types.Z3Exception: Python value cannot be used as a Z3 integer. Why is that?
When you loop over a model, you do not get a variable that you can directly query. What you get is an internal representation, which can correspond to a constant, or it can correspond to something more complicated like a function or an array. Typically, you should query the model with the variables you have, i.e., with n. (As in model[n].)
You can fix your immediate problem like this:
for var in model:
solve.add(var() == model[var()])
but this'll only work assuming you have simple variables in the model, i.e., no uninterpreted-functions, arrays, or other objects. See this question for a detailed discussion: https://stackoverflow.com/a/11869410/936310
Similarly, your second expression throws an exception because while == is defined over arbitrary objects (though doing the wrong thing here), >= isn't. So, in a sense it's the "right" thing to do to throw an exception here. (That is, == should've thrown an exception as well.) Alas, the Python bindings are loosely typed, meaning it'll try to make sense of what you wrote, not necessarily always doing what you intended along the way.
What are the benefits and drawbacks of the ?: operator as opposed to the standard if-else statement. The obvious ones being:
Conditional ?: Operator
Shorter and more concise when dealing with direct value comparisons and assignments
Doesn't seem to be as flexible as the if/else construct
Standard If/Else
Can be applied to more situations (such as function calls)
Often are unnecessarily long
Readability seems to vary for each depending on the statement. For a little while after first being exposed to the ?: operator, it took me some time to digest exactly how it worked. Would you recommend using it wherever possible, or sticking to if/else given that I work with many non-programmers?
I would basically recommend using it only when the resulting statement is extremely short and represents a significant increase in conciseness over the if/else equivalent without sacrificing readability.
Good example:
int result = Check() ? 1 : 0;
Bad example:
int result = FirstCheck() ? 1 : SecondCheck() ? 1 : ThirdCheck() ? 1 : 0;
This is pretty much covered by the other answers, but "it's an expression" doesn't really explain why that is so useful...
In languages like C++ and C#, you can define local readonly fields (within a method body) using them. This is not possible with a conventional if/then statement because the value of a readonly field has to be assigned within that single statement:
readonly int speed = (shiftKeyDown) ? 10 : 1;
is not the same as:
readonly int speed;
if (shifKeyDown)
speed = 10; // error - can't assign to a readonly
else
speed = 1; // error
In a similar way you can embed a tertiary expression in other code. As well as making the source code more compact (and in some cases more readable as a result) it can also make the generated machine code more compact and efficient:
MoveCar((shiftKeyDown) ? 10 : 1);
...may generate less code than having to call the same method twice:
if (shiftKeyDown)
MoveCar(10);
else
MoveCar(1);
Of course, it's also a more convenient and concise form (less typing, less repetition, and can reduce the chance of errors if you have to duplicate chunks of code in an if/else). In clean "common pattern" cases like this:
object thing = (reference == null) ? null : reference.Thing;
... it is simply faster to read/parse/understand (once you're used to it) than the long-winded if/else equivalent, so it can help you to 'grok' code faster.
Of course, just because it is useful does not mean it is the best thing to use in every case. I'd advise only using it for short bits of code where the meaning is clear (or made more clear) by using ?: - if you use it in more complex code, or nest ternary operators within each other it can make code horribly difficult to read.
I usually choose a ternary operator when I'd have a lot of duplicate code otherwise.
if (a > 0)
answer = compute(a, b, c, d, e);
else
answer = compute(-a, b, c, d, e);
With a ternary operator, this could be accomplished with the following.
answer = compute(a > 0 ? a : -a, b, c, d, e);
I find it particularly helpful when doing web development if I want to set a variable to a value sent in the request if it is defined or to some default value if it is not.
A really cool usage is:
x = foo ? 1 :
bar ? 2 :
baz ? 3 :
4;
Sometimes it can make the assignment of a bool value easier to read at first glance:
// With
button.IsEnabled = someControl.HasError ? false : true;
// Without
button.IsEnabled = !someControl.HasError;
I'd recommend limiting the use of the ternary(?:) operator to simple single line assignment if/else logic. Something resembling this pattern:
if(<boolCondition>) {
<variable> = <value>;
}
else {
<variable> = <anotherValue>;
}
Could be easily converted to:
<variable> = <boolCondition> ? <value> : <anotherValue>;
I would avoid using the ternary operator in situations that require if/else if/else, nested if/else, or if/else branch logic that results in the evaluation of multiple lines. Applying the ternary operator in these situations would likely result in unreadable, confusing, and unmanageable code. Hope this helps.
The conditional operator is great for short conditions, like this:
varA = boolB ? valC : valD;
I use it occasionally because it takes less time to write something that way... unfortunately, this branching can sometimes be missed by another developer browsing over your code. Plus, code isn't usually that short, so I usually help readability by putting the ? and : on separate lines, like this:
doSomeStuffToSomething(shouldSomethingBeDone()
? getTheThingThatNeedsStuffDone()
: getTheOtherThingThatNeedsStuffDone());
However, the big advantage to using if/else blocks (and why I prefer them) is that it's easier to come in later and add some additional logic to the branch,
if (shouldSomethingBeDone()) {
doSomeStuffToSomething(getTheThingThatNeedsStuffDone());
doSomeAdditionalStuff();
} else {
doSomeStuffToSomething(getTheOtherThingThatNeedsStuffDone());
}
or add another condition:
if (shouldSomethingBeDone()) {
doSomeStuffToSomething(getTheThingThatNeedsStuffDone());
doSomeAdditionalStuff();
} else if (shouldThisOtherThingBeDone()){
doSomeStuffToSomething(getTheOtherThingThatNeedsStuffDone());
}
So, in the end, it's about convenience for you now (shorter to use :?) vs. convenience for you (and others) later. It's a judgment call... but like all other code-formatting issues, the only real rule is to be consistent, and be visually courteous to those who have to maintain (or grade!) your code.
(all code eye-compiled)
One thing to recognize when using the ternary operator that it is an expression not a statement.
In functional languages like scheme the distinction doesn't exists:
(if (> a b) a b)
Conditional ?: Operator
"Doesn't seem to be as flexible as the if/else construct"
In functional languages it is.
When programming in imperative languages I apply the ternary operator in situations where I typically would use expressions (assignment, conditional statements, etc).
While the above answers are valid, and I agree with readability being important, there are 2 further points to consider:
In C#6, you can have expression-bodied methods.
This makes it particularly concise to use the ternary:
string GetDrink(DayOfWeek day)
=> day == DayOfWeek.Friday
? "Beer" : "Tea";
Behaviour differs when it comes to implicit type conversion.
If you have types T1 and T2 that can both be implicitly converted to T, then the below does not work:
T GetT() => true ? new T1() : new T2();
(because the compiler tries to determine the type of the ternary expression, and there is no conversion between T1 and T2.)
On the other hand, the if/else version below does work:
T GetT()
{
if (true) return new T1();
return new T2();
}
because T1 is converted to T and so is T2
If I'm setting a value and I know it will always be one line of code to do so, I typically use the ternary (conditional) operator. If there's a chance my code and logic will change in the future, I use an if/else as it's more clear to other programmers.
Of further interest to you may be the ?? operator.
The advantage of the conditional operator is that it is an operator. In other words, it returns a value. Since if is a statement, it cannot return a value.
There is some performance benefit of using the the ? operator in eg. MS Visual C++, but this is a really a compiler specific thing. The compiler can actually optimize out the conditional branch in some cases.
The scenario I most find myself using it is for defaulting values and especially in returns
return someIndex < maxIndex ? someIndex : maxIndex;
Those are really the only places I find it nice, but for them I do.
Though if you're looking for a boolean this might sometimes look like an appropriate thing to do:
bool hey = whatever < whatever_else ? true : false;
Because it's so easy to read and understand, but that idea should always be tossed for the more obvious:
bool hey = (whatever < whatever_else);
If you need multiple branches on the same condition, use an if:
if (A == 6)
f(1, 2, 3);
else
f(4, 5, 6);
If you need multiple branches with different conditions, then if statement count would snowball, you'll want to use the ternary:
f( (A == 6)? 1: 4, (B == 6)? 2: 5, (C == 6)? 3: 6 );
Also, you can use the ternary operator in initialization.
const int i = (A == 6)? 1 : 4;
Doing that with if is very messy:
int i_temp;
if (A == 6)
i_temp = 1;
else
i_temp = 4;
const int i = i_temp;
You can't put the initialization inside the if/else, because it changes the scope. But references and const variables can only be bound at initialization.
The ternary operator can be included within an rvalue, whereas an if-then-else cannot; on the other hand, an if-then-else can execute loops and other statements, whereas the ternary operator can only execute (possibly void) rvalues.
On a related note, the && and || operators allow some execution patterns which are harder to implement with if-then-else. For example, if one has several functions to call and wishes to execute a piece of code if any of them fail, it can be done nicely using the && operator. Doing it without that operator will either require redundant code, a goto, or an extra flag variable.
With C# 7, you can use the new ref locals feature to simplify the conditional assignment of ref-compatible variables. So now, not only can you do:
int i = 0;
T b = default(T), c = default(T);
// initialization of C#7 'ref-local' variable using a conditional r-value⁽¹⁾
ref T a = ref (i == 0 ? ref b : ref c);
...but also the extremely wonderful:
// assignment of l-value⁽²⁾ conditioned by C#7 'ref-locals'
(i == 0 ? ref b : ref c) = a;
That line of code assigns the value of a to either b or c, depending on the value of i.
Notes
1. r-value is the right-hand side of an assignment, the value that gets assigned.
2. l-value is the left-hand side of an assignment, the variable that receives the assigned value.
I am trying to verify my code in Dafny and I encountered a problem:
I have a method that is iterating over a sequence and changes it. The method changes the sequence according to the elements in the sequence. I would like to add a post condition like this: "if the elements in the sequence are X then something should happen". The problem is that the method changes the set (adds element etc.) and I want to check the condition of the original sequence. Is there an elegant way of doing that in Dafny? (The only way I could think of right now is keeping global var of the original condition of the sequence, but I am looking for the right way of doing that).
Code example:
method changeSeq(p: class1, s: seq<class1>)
ensures |s| == 10 ==> p in s
{
if (|s| == 10){
s := s + [p];
}
}
In the code, I want the post condition to check original s stat, and not its stat after we changed it.
you can use old for old value of a variable like s == old(s).
Here is one example: http://rise4fun.com/Dafny/fhQgD
From Dafny Documentation 22.18. Old Expressions
OldExpression_ = "old" "(" Expression(allowLemma: true, allowLambda: true) ")"
An old expression is used in postconditions. old(e) evaluates to the value expression e had on entry to the current method. Note that old only affects heap dereferences, like o.f and a[i]. In particular, old has no effect on the value returned for local variables or out-parameters.
Should I return a optional value like:
func someFunc(#num: Int) -> Obj? {
if num < 0 {
return nil
}
...
}
Or just use assert:
func someFunc(#num: Int) -> Obj {
assert(num >= 0, "Number should greater or equal then zero")
...
}
Edit: Now the conditions are identical in two cases, the number should greater or equal then 0. Negative values are not permitted.
If you use assert and the caller passes an invalid argument it is a non-recoverable error/crash. The caller may not be aware of all the ways the assert may be caused, that is internal logic the caller is not supposed to know.
Really the only time assert is meaningful is to check the calling arguments on method entry and even in that case it must be made clear to the user exactly what is invalid and that can never be made more stringent for the life of the method.
Since this is about Swift returning an Optional seems to make the most sense and it will be clear to the caller that a possible error must be handled. Optionals are a major feature of Swift, use them.
Or always return a useful result the way atan() handles being called with ±0 and ±Inf.
It depends on what you want the precondition of the function to be: if it is an error call it with a negative value (or non-positive; your two examples are contradictory), then go with the assert and document this. Then it becomes part of the contract that the user of the function must check the value if it's uncertain. Or if it makes more sense to support these values and return nil (e.g., the function will typically be called with such values and the nil is not an issue for that typical use), do that instead… Without knowing the details it's impossible to tell which suits best, but my guess would be the former.
I have this Erlang code:
not lists:any(fun(Condition) ->Condition(Message) end, Conditions).
Can anyone please explain the entire statement in layman's terms? For your information Condition is a function, Conditions is an array. What does fun(Condition) ->Condition(Message) end mean? As well as meaning of not lists:any.
fun(Condition) ->Condition(Message) end
is a lambda function that applies the function Condition to the value of Message (taken as a closure on the surrounding code).
lists:any
is a function that takes a predicate and a list of values, and calls the predicate on each value in turn, and returns the atom true if any of the predicate calls do.
Overall, the result is the atom true if none of the Condition functions in the list Conditions return true for the Message value.
EDIT -- add documentation for lists:any
any(Pred, List) -> bool()
Types:
Pred = fun(Elem) -> bool()
Elem = term()
List = [term()]
Returns true if Pred(Elem) returns true for at least one element Elem in List.
Condition is something that takes a message and returns a boolean if it meets some criteria.
The code goes through the list of conditions and if any of them say true then it returns false, and if all of them say false it says true.
Roughly translated to verbose pseudo-Python:
def not_lists_any(Message,Conditions):
for Condition in Conditions:
if Condition(Message):
return False
return True
One step behind syntax and stdlib description which you have in other answers:
This code looks very much like an Erlang implementation of chain-of-responsibility design pattern. The message (in OOP sense of the word) "traverses" all possible handlers (functions from Conditions array) until someone can handle it. By the author's convention, the one which handles the message returns true (otherwise false), so if nobody could handle the message the result of your expression as a whole is true:
% this is your code wrapped in a function
dispatch(Message, Handlers) ->
not lists:any(fun(Condition) ->Condition(Message) end, Handlers).
It may be used like this:
CantHandle = dispatch(Event, Handlers),
if CantHandle->throw(cannot_handle); true->ok end.