Jad Hamza
Jad Hamza
Thanks! Yes it works with `noind` both for this example and #240
Here I think the error is that you need to annotate `@mutable trait C {}`, and then you'll have other error messages.
> yes, sorry, to be clearer, the issue is that once you put the @mutable annotation on C. you inherit (ho ho ho) two problems. the first is that the...
I checked again by running just with `--solvers=smt-cvc4`, and `CVC4` is in fact able to solve the VC instantly (so last sentence of previous post was wrong). But for some...
Fixed in https://github.com/epfl-lara/inox/pull/134
I think they come from here, we can avoid generating the assertion when there is just one constructor: https://github.com/epfl-lara/stainless/blob/940261c8669beba76cff59fc05eea2ddfd4a6988/core/src/main/scala/stainless/verification/AssertionInjector.scala#L79-L85
If we add `Unchecked` the type-checker will also ignore assertions that appear in `expr` (I guess we have this problem in other places where we use `Unchecked`)
At the moment let bindings don't work well with `SizedADT` because `getType` returns `ADT`
Yes that'd be great, but these are big changes, what do you have in mind? Should `SizedADT` be moved to Inox?
This is fixed now by I'm reopening for the untyped let-binding and the `Unchecked` annotation.