Skip to content
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

[BUG] Typecheck fails on tuples in quantifiers #482

Closed
konnov opened this issue Jan 23, 2021 · 3 comments · Fixed by #537
Closed

[BUG] Typecheck fails on tuples in quantifiers #482

konnov opened this issue Jan 23, 2021 · 3 comments · Fixed by #537
Assignees
Labels
bug FTC-Snowcat Feature: Fully-functional type checker Snowcat

Comments

@konnov
Copy link
Collaborator

konnov commented Jan 23, 2021

Though we have fixed the issue #476 in the model checker, it is surfacing in the type checker. See test/tla/ExistTuple476.tla:

------------------ MODULE ExistTuple476 ----------------------
(* A regression test for the issue:
   /~https://github.com/informalsystems/apalache/issues/476
 *)
EXTENDS Integers

VARIABLES x, y

Init ==
    x = 0 /\ y = 0

Next ==
    \E <<i, j>> \in (1..2) \X (3..4):
        /\ x' = i
        /\ y' = j
==============================================================
@konnov konnov added bug FTC-Snowcat Feature: Fully-functional type checker Snowcat labels Jan 23, 2021
@konnov konnov added this to the January iteration milestone Jan 23, 2021
@konnov konnov self-assigned this Jan 23, 2021
@konnov
Copy link
Collaborator Author

konnov commented Feb 1, 2021

Once #531 is there, we have to add Desugarer as a preprocessing pass to the type checker.

@konnov
Copy link
Collaborator Author

konnov commented Feb 3, 2021

In the end, we will not use Desugarer as a preprocessing pass for the typechecker. It makes type information less precise. ToEtcExpr already has the code to deal with tuples in set comprehensions and function constructors. Quantifiers is just a missing case here.

@shonfeder
Copy link
Contributor

shonfeder commented Feb 3, 2021

Let's wait to close issues until the PR that fixes them is actually merged going forward. Github will take care of this for us, if the PR includes the phrase closes #nnn, and this will ensure that fixes are actually in before we say they are resolved. This is useful for users and for our own tracking.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug FTC-Snowcat Feature: Fully-functional type checker Snowcat
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants