Add to_gcnf transformation and GDIMACS reader/writer#851
Draft
Add to_gcnf transformation and GDIMACS reader/writer#851
to_gcnf transformation and GDIMACS reader/writer#851Conversation
hbierlee
changed the title
to_gcnf transformation and writerto_gcnf transformation and to_gdimacs reader/writer
hbierlee
changed the title
to_gcnf transformation and to_gdimacs reader/writerto_gcnf transformation and GDIMACS reader/writer
Collaborator
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
With @OrestisLomis, a GDIMACS reader/writer supported by a
to_gcnffunction. The writer optionally follows the specification (https://satisfiability.org/competition/2011/rules.pdf) that groups of clauses have to be disjoint. Tested using roundtrips for most cases (i.e.write(read(gdimacs)) == gdimacs), except for missing groups, which could be fixed still. Perhaps interesting for @ThomSerg.The
to_gcnfis regarded the same as themake_assump_model, but also returns the hard clauses separately. This does make it a lot easier for some cases, but now it's a bit inconsistent, so I'm not sure what to do with that yet.Also includes a fix for the solution generator in to_cnf tests.