spot
1.2.6
|
Abstract class for saba states. More...
#include <saba/sabastate.hh>
Public Member Functions | |
virtual int | compare (const saba_state *other) const =0 |
Compares two states (that come from the same automaton). More... | |
virtual size_t | hash () const =0 |
Hash a state. More... | |
virtual saba_state * | clone () const =0 |
Duplicate a state. More... | |
virtual bdd | acceptance_conditions () const =0 |
Get the acceptance condition. More... | |
Abstract class for saba states.
|
pure virtual |
Get the acceptance condition.
saba are state-labeled automata, then their acceptance conditions are labeled on states.
|
pure virtual |
Duplicate a state.
|
pure virtual |
Compares two states (that come from the same automaton).
This method returns an integer less than, equal to, or greater than zero if this is found, respectively, to be less than, equal to, or greater than other according to some implicit total order.
This method should not be called to compare states from different automata.
|
pure virtual |
Hash a state.
This method returns an integer that can be used as a hash value for this state.
Note that the hash value is guaranteed to be unique for all equal states (in compare()'s sense) for only has long has one of these states exists. So it's OK to use a spot::saba_state as a key in a hash_map
because the mere use of the state as a key in the hash will ensure the state continues to exist.
However if you create the state, get its hash key, delete the state, recreate the same state, and get its hash key, you may obtain two different hash keys if the same state were not already used elsewhere. In practice this weird situation can occur only when the state is BDD-encoded, because BDD numbers (used to build the hash value) can be reused for other formulas. That probably doesn't matter, since the hash value is meant to be used in a hash_map
, but it had to be noted.