Open
Conversation
rcosta358
added
enhancement
rcosta358
force-pushed
the
misleading-expansions
branch
from
9c718cf to
780ab72
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes #161. Even when the simplifier could not actually simplify an expression, it still produced a derivation tree that looked like it contained meaningful expansions:
-(128)→-128) was treated as a simplification and given a derivation origin. To fix this, we skip creating an origin when the operand is a just a literalA && B && Cwas always turned into a derivation tree even when nothing changed. To fix this, now we only create aBinaryDerivationNodeif at least one child expression actually has an originExample
Before
After