Abstract: future

[jbcaillau]

@ocots @PierreMartinon @joseph-gergaud @j-l-s Some todo's suggestions:

• add single sided inequalities (see also Functional: revise #67 as having a kwargs version of constraint! does help for this)
• add reverse inequalities (≥)
• declare time, state, control, variable simultaneously according to

(t, x, u) ∈ [ 0, 1 ] × R³ × R²
(t, x, u, v) ∈ [ 0, v₂ ] × R³ × R² × R²            # meaning that final time is free and equal to v[2] = v₂

• [ ] in place dynamics (f!(ẋ(t), x(t), u(t))) or even DAE form (F(ẋ(t), x(t), u(t)) == 0)
• [ ] for the in place form, using a keyword like

ẋ(t) == f(x(t), u(t)), inplace

• parse dynamics in several steps: x'[2](t) == ..., x'[2:4](t) == ... (each time call dynamics!, and assemble afterwards what the dynamics is...) [Feature] Dynamics components #292
• allow @Lie [ X, Y ] and @Poisson { f, g } directly (= without @) in the DSL?

[ocots]

Would be nice to have also

x = (position, velocity) ∈ R², state

to use position and velocity as names for plots.

[ocots]

This has been added:

x = (position, velocity) ∈ R², state

See

CTBase.jl/test/test_onepass.jl

Line 10 in f594793

x = (y, z) ∈ R², state

[ocots]

To declare the time, state and control, I propose:

@def begin
  t ∈ [ 0, 1 ], time
  x ∈ R³, state
  u ∈ R², control
end

# or

@def begin
  (t, x, u) ∈ [ 0, 1 ] × R³ × R²
end

@def begin
  v ∈ R², variable
  t ∈ [ 0, v₂ ], time
  x ∈ R³, state
  u ∈ R², control
end

# or

@def begin
  (t, x, u, v) ∈ [ 0, v₂ ] × R³ × R² × R²
end

@def begin
  t ∈ [ 0, 1 ], time
  x = (a, b, c) ∈ R³, state
  u ∈ R², control
  u₁ ≥ 0
  0 ≤ c ≤ 1
end

# or

@def begin
  t ∈ [ 0, 1 ], time
  x = (a, b, c) ∈ R² × [ 0, 1 ] , state
  u ∈ R₊ × R, control
end

# or

@def begin
  t ∈ [ 0, 1 ], time
  x = (a, b, c) ∈ R × R × [ 0, 1 ] , state
  u ∈ [ 0, +∞) × R, control
end

[PierreMartinon]

For the record, the abstract form is great, I am increasingly using it instead of the 'functional' form :-) It feels a bit like when we added the proper gui for bocop: after a while I very rarely used the command-line since the gui was just better.

The main thing holding me back are the non-standard characters. I'll try to find the time to add some bits (looking at you, dear <=) !

[ocots]

You can write non unicode if you want. Check the tutorial 😁

Ou à partir de là tu as des exemples :

CTBase.jl/test/test_onepass.jl

Line 2405 in 3741864

@testset "non unicode keywords" begin

[jbcaillau]

@PierreMartinon yes. I believe the functional syntax should probably be kept internal. the only advantage is that it is incremental (and that you can delete a constraint...) but re-defining an abstract problem just costs nothing so...

as mentioned by @ocots, full non-unicode support now. sone that wasn't you asked so 🙂...

[jbcaillau]

related to #257