1. 15 Mar, 2016 1 commit
  2. 10 Dec, 2015 1 commit
  3. 25 Nov, 2015 2 commits
  4. 13 Oct, 2015 1 commit
  5. 06 Oct, 2015 1 commit
  6. 11 Aug, 2015 1 commit
  7. 16 Jul, 2015 1 commit
    • David Hauzar's avatar
      Adding information about the line that corresponds to the VC check · 68b3134d
      David Hauzar authored
      to the counter-example model.
      
      This line must be marked with the label "model_vc".
      If VC line is postcondition, it can be marked with the label
      "model_func" or "model_func:func_name". Terms corresponding to
      old values of arguments will be marked with @old, term corresponding
      to the function result will be marked with @result or
      func_name@result if func_name was given.
      
      Pretty printing of model element names in counter-example.
      Possibility to print differently model elements corresponding to
      function result, old values of function arguments and other model
      elements.
      68b3134d
  8. 02 Jul, 2015 1 commit
  9. 18 Jun, 2015 1 commit
  10. 27 Apr, 2015 1 commit
  11. 21 Mar, 2015 1 commit
  12. 20 Mar, 2015 1 commit
  13. 19 Mar, 2015 1 commit
  14. 05 Jan, 2015 1 commit
  15. 25 Oct, 2014 1 commit
  16. 22 Oct, 2014 2 commits
  17. 17 Oct, 2014 1 commit
  18. 20 Sep, 2014 2 commits
  19. 02 Sep, 2014 2 commits
  20. 08 Aug, 2014 1 commit
  21. 07 Apr, 2014 1 commit
  22. 31 Mar, 2014 1 commit
  23. 19 Mar, 2014 1 commit
  24. 14 Mar, 2014 1 commit
  25. 05 Mar, 2014 1 commit
  26. 17 Feb, 2014 1 commit
  27. 16 Feb, 2014 1 commit
  28. 14 Feb, 2014 3 commits
    • Andrei Paskevich's avatar
      WhyML: change the syntax of "abstract" · 4fd8b24d
      Andrei Paskevich authored
      The old syntax:   abstract expr [spec]...
      
      The semicolon binds more loosely than "abstract" and
      the specification clauses are optional, so that
      "abstract e1; e2" is the same as "(abstract e1); e2"
      and "abstract e1; e2; ensures {...}" is a syntax error.
      
      The new syntax:   abstract [spec]... expr end
      
      This allows to put sequences of expressions under "abstract"
      without ambiguity and moves the specification clauses to the
      beginning. In other words, "abstract" becomes a "begin" with
      a specification attached. The spec-at-the-top is consistent
      with the syntax of functions and the whole seems to be more
      natural for the intented use of "abstract" (a logical cut).
      4fd8b24d
    • Andrei Paskevich's avatar
      WhyML: admit terminating semi-colons when there is no ambiguity · e66e2a3f
      Andrei Paskevich authored
      Examples:
      
        begin ... expr; end
      
        let fn x y = ... expr ; in ...
      
        match ... with pat -> ... expr ; | pat -> ... expr ; end
      
      In this way, it's much easier to add and remove additional
      assertions at the end of ()-typed blocks.
      e66e2a3f
    • Andrei Paskevich's avatar
      0931fc96
  29. 12 Feb, 2014 2 commits
  30. 20 Jan, 2014 1 commit
    • Andrei Paskevich's avatar
      WhyML: add "diverges", "reads {}", and "writes {}" effect clauses · 83858597
      Andrei Paskevich authored
      - "diverges" states that the computation may not terminate (which
        does not mean that is always diverges: just as any other effect
        annotation, this clause states a possibility of a side effect).
      
      - "reads {}" states that the computation does not access any variable
        except those that are listed elsewhere in the specification (or the
        proper function arguments, if "reads" is in a function spec).
      
      - "writes {}" states that the computation does not modify any mutable
        value.
      
      - If a function definition or an abstract computation may diverge,
        but there is no "diverges" clause in the specification, a warning
        is produced. If a function definition or an abstract computation
        always terminates, but there is a "diverges" clause in the spec,
        an error is produced.
      
      - If there is a "reads" or a "writes" clause in a function definition
        or an abstract computation, then every modified value must be listed
        in "writes" and every accessed external variable not mentioned in
        the spec must be listed in "reads". (Notice that this is a stricter
        requirement than before, when the presence of a "writes" clause
        did not require to specify "reads".) However, one does not have to
        write "reads {}" or "writes {}" if the corresponding lists are empty.
      83858597
  31. 14 Jan, 2014 2 commits
  32. 03 Dec, 2013 1 commit