Closed mejrpete closed 3 years ago
@gfrances do you mind if I just merge this into the feature branch? Do you have preferences on a clean merge vs. squash vs. rebase for this one? My gut feeling is that the intermediate commits here have the potential to confuse more than they clarify. That said -- given that it's a separate feature branch perhaps we want to preserve more history and then clean it up when the eventual clean refactor is (eventually) ready to be merged into something like devel
down then line?
Just let me know if you have a strong preference either way!
Thanks @mejrpete! Looking forward to work on this. As for the merge, feel free to proceed with the approach you're happier with, we don't really have any policy about this in the project, but if I had to choose I'd leave the full commit history, it is never more confusing than one single commit :-) Your call!
Sounds good to me! Lets at least retain the messages in a squash then. An uninformative merge commit definitely isn't the way to go, but since I pulled in updates from devel
(via the new feature branch) that were from after I originally forked, there's no clean way to just rebase the history directly on.
Looking forward to working on this more as well!
This PR essentially duplicates https://github.com/aig-upf/tarski/pull/95. The text below is quoted from the original PR (which was submitted as a draft to
devel
, but is now correctly submitted to the new feature branchrddl-refactor
as discussed).The intention for this partial refactor is to serve as a starting point for work towards a full SMT-like representation which would eliminate the distinction between
Predicate
andFunction
(along withFormula
andTerm
) intarski
.