Closed seblund closed 1 year ago
Should we rename bisim
to bi-simulation
? And should [Bsim]
be [BSim]
?
Should we rename
bisim
tobi-simulation
?
bisim
is short for bisimulation minimization so I don't think bi-simulation
makes sense. But it should probably be bisim-minim
as it is specified in the grammar here https://github.com/Ecdar/Ecdar-Common/issues/2
And should
[Bsim]
be[BSim]
?
I'm fine with either. In the other cases e.g. local-consistency -> LCon
we capitalize L
and C
because it is two words. But "bsim" is just short for bisimulation which is one word, so it could be either 🤷♂️
So this is what the current list of query types looks like in the GUI: From today's meeting, the only changes are
global-consistency [GCon]
should be renamed tolocal-consistency [LCon]
consistency [lCon]
should be renamed toconsistency [Con]
Other than that:
quotient [\]
is not a query type and should be removed from the listThe engines do not currently support
local-consistency:
(forlocal-consistency [LCon]
) in their grammar but they should in the future.We should probably also be consistent with the capitalizations in the shorthands. So either
[Spec], [Impl], [Con], [LCon], [Bsim], [Get]
or[spec], [impl], [con], [lCon], [bsim], [get]
. I prefer the first.