Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clarify impure in systems of equations. #3571

Open
wants to merge 7 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
5 changes: 3 additions & 2 deletions chapters/functions.tex
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -232,6 +232,7 @@ \section{Pure Modelica Functions}\label{pure-modelica-functions}
If a function is declared as \lstinline!impure! any function extending from it shall be declared as \lstinline!impure!.
\item
A deprecated semantics is that external functions (and functions defined in Modelica directly or indirectly calling them) without \lstinline!pure! or \lstinline!impure! keyword are assumed to be impure, but without any restriction on calling them.
Similarly they can be part of systems of equations without restrictions.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we manage to write the text clearly, there shouldn't be a need for this sentence, as the systems-of-equations rule should be perceived as one of the calling restrictions.

Except for the function \lstinline!Modelica.Utilities.Streams.print!, a diagnostic must be given if called in a simulation model.
\end{itemize}

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -295,8 +296,8 @@ \section{Pure Modelica Functions}\label{pure-modelica-functions}
A function having a formal function parameter that is \lstinline!impure! must be marked \lstinline!pure! or \lstinline!impure!.

\begin{nonnormative}
Comment: The semantics are undefined if the function call of an
impure function is part of an algebraic loop.
Comment: The semantics are undefined if the function call of an impure function is part of an algebraic loop.
HansOlsson marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
This can occur for the deprecated case of external functions assumed to be impure, or when using \lstinline!pure(expression)! to call an impure function in a pure function.
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
Comment: The semantics are undefined if the function call of an impure function is part of an algebraic loop.
This can occur for the deprecated case of external functions assumed to be impure, or when using \lstinline!pure(expression)! to call an impure function in a pure function.
Comment: The exact semantics are undefined if the function call of an impure function is part of an algebraic loop.
Specifically the number of calls with external side-effects is unspecified.
However, for impure functions where the outputs only depend on the inputs the algebraic loop should be solved correctly.
This can occur for the deprecated case of external functions assumed to be impure, or when using \lstinline!pure(expression)! to call an impure function in a pure function.

I believe this was the intended idea.

Not a general undefined-behavior in C-terms (with nasal demons etc), but just the pragmatic point that you cannot solve an algebraic loop with an impure function that e.g., returns the current time in nano-seconds, and that you have no control of the number of external side-effects generated.

That's why it is non-normative.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How about speaking of side-effect semantics? Wouldn't that then be nicely elaborated by the outputs-only-depending-on-inputs rule?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok, makes sense.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Have now done that.

\end{nonnormative}

\begin{example}
Expand Down