CONTEXT "Issue1293"
REPRESENT A TYPE INTEGER
RELATION r[A * B] = [ (1,"aap"), (2,"noot"), (3,"mies") ]
RELATION s[A * B] = [ (2,"noot"), (3,"mies") ]
-- ROLE ExecEngine MAINTAINS Issue
RULE r - (I#"aap") |- s
-- VIOLATION ( TXT "{EX} InsPair;personPhoneNumber;Person;",SRC I, TXT ";PhoneNumber;", TGT I )
ENDCONTEXT
I ran "ampersand proofs" on this script, which gave the following analysis:
Rules and their conjuncts for Issue1293
rule r: rule@/Users/sjo00577/git/Nutwente/model/Issue1293.adl:9:10
formalExpression r: r [A*B]-(I[A]#"aap"[B]) |- s [A*B]
conjNF: V [A*B]
conj: V [A*B]
What I expected
I expected that -r [A*B]-(I[A]#"aap"[B])\/s [A*B] would have been printed as -(r [A*B]-(I[A]#"aap"[B]))\/s [A*B] (with extra brackets, that is).
So, there is clearly a mistake in printing expressions.
What happened
I have run the following script:
I ran "ampersand proofs" on this script, which gave the following analysis: Rules and their conjuncts for Issue1293
What I expected
I expected that
-r [A*B]-(I[A]#"aap"[B])\/s [A*B]would have been printed as-(r [A*B]-(I[A]#"aap"[B]))\/s [A*B](with extra brackets, that is). So, there is clearly a mistake in printing expressions.Version of ampersand that was used
Ampersand-v4.6.3