RFC: Integer variable modeling #5
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
…ed into anything). Along the way, remove variable/constraint names since they don't seem to be doing anything useful.
|
Also, cc @Anhtu07 |
mtanneau
requested changes
Dec 10, 2020
|
👍 for removing the names Storing variable types separately makes more sense. |
mtanneau
approved these changes
Dec 10, 2020
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I added a new field to
ProblemDatato track the types of variables. At this point, a variable can be continuous, binary, or general integer. This is not yet plugged into anything interesting, and in fact all but one of the LP presolve routines will immediately error in the presence of integer variables. I want to audit things first to make sure that the routines are "safe" for IPs.Along the way, I ripped out the variable/constraint name fields. They did not seem useful to me, and they made the modeling interface marginally uglier since I wanted to make the "variable type" field optional. I can revert or split this change into a separate PR if desired.
I chose to store the types as a separate field, rather than trying to pack this into the
Coltype. I'm open to changing it if desired, though.(Sorry about the unrelated whitespace changes, VS Code apparently ran a linter in the background).