We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
I can say
@slots x @rule log(exp(x::Real)) --> x
but I wonder if the constraint should go with the slot declaration
@slots x::Real @rule log(exp(x)) --> x
This would be easier to read.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
cool idea!
Sorry, something went wrong.
This too would be much easier to read with just @theory p::Bool q::Bool begin instead of having to rewrite ::Bool at each location.
@theory p::Bool q::Bool begin
::Bool
@theory p q begin (p::Bool == q::Bool) => (p == q) (p::Bool || q::Bool) => (p || q) (p::Bool ⟹ q::Bool) => ((p || q) == q) (p::Bool && q::Bool) => (p && q) !(p::Bool) => (!p) end
Adding it to the list for 3.0
No branches or pull requests
I can say
but I wonder if the constraint should go with the slot declaration
This would be easier to read.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: