done with subtract redundant constraint transformation

[YeabsiraNigusse]

Description

I have added a function called setDifference and test functions for it. it is used for making a subtract redundant constraint transformation over a given expression. This function assumes it receives a set1 and the set2 expression as parameters. It then removes redundant elements from set1 expression that already exist in the set2. This function also can be used for lCCSUBTRACT transformation with command set and current expression given as a parameter. The function uses isMember from general helpers functions.

Motivation and Context

It is one of the main transformations applied to an expression, and it solves the problem of subtracting redundant constraints from the expression.

It does not fix any existing issues but creates this new issue.

How Has This Been Tested?

i have added functions inside general-helper-function-test file. the file contain a unit test with different test cases and checks the function output with assertEqual built-in metta function.

No Environment needed. running the the test file would be enough.

Types of changes

• [ ] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• [x] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

Checklist:

• [x] My code follows the code style of this project.
• [x] I have added tests to cover my changes.
• [x] All new and existing tests passed.

[Yagth]

@samwondim , Yab claims that this function can be beneficial for you, can you take a look?

[YeabsiraNigusse]

@samwondim , Yab claims that this function can be beneficial for you, can you take a look?

@Yagth @samwondim refer the RTE pseudocode for detail look. the two transformation do the same thing except their parameter.

[YeabsiraNigusse]

@Yagth i have finalized the function and added it as a utility function. you can check it out.

[Yagth]

@YeabsiraNigusse, so does the issue #143 still persists or it no longer needs to be addressed?

[YeabsiraNigusse]

@YeabsiraNigusse, so does the issue #143 still persists or it no longer needs to be addressed?

Yeah, I think we no longer need the issue since the transformation is now represented by a general helper function. For the getDominant function case, we could take another approach, such as updating the dominant set each time the expression changes, rather than recalculating it every time. This is more computationally efficient. However, if we can't do this due to the complexity of the function (RTE), we might need to reconsider it. We discussed this approach in the last meeting, so for now, we can consider the issue resolved.