You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
As revealed by #370 and discussed in #366, the current version of decompose_in_tree, e.g. [(count([IV1,IV2,IV3],1)) - 2 == 0] stays like that. This creates a problem in solvers that support count only in a direct comparison and that do not use any other transformations later (like minizinc). If flatten is used, like in ortools, this is not a problem, but we should not always have to use flatten to support them.
In my opinion, we should directly flatten these cases in decompose_in_tree. It is easy to do so, using normalized_numexpr(), and offers many benefits.
I will open a PR with this and we can decide if we move towards this or not
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
As revealed by #370 and discussed in #366, the current version of decompose_in_tree, e.g. [(count([IV1,IV2,IV3],1)) - 2 == 0] stays like that. This creates a problem in solvers that support count only in a direct comparison and that do not use any other transformations later (like minizinc). If flatten is used, like in ortools, this is not a problem, but we should not always have to use flatten to support them.
In my opinion, we should directly flatten these cases in decompose_in_tree. It is easy to do so, using normalized_numexpr(), and offers many benefits.
I will open a PR with this and we can decide if we move towards this or not
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: