Opened 8 years ago
Closed 7 years ago
#4253 closed defect (fixed)
inverse in OM
Reported by: | shabunin_a@… | Owned by: | ptaeuber |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | high | Milestone: | 1.13.0 |
Component: | Backend | Version: | v1.12.0 |
Keywords: | Cc: |
Description (last modified by sjoelund.se)
Hello.
How I can realize this function:
x = y2, but (-y)2 = -x, sqrt(-x) = -y.
My attempt to make this function in file.
Attachments (1)
Change History (5)
Changed 8 years ago by anonymous
comment:1 Changed 7 years ago by casella
- Component changed from *unknown* to Backend
- Milestone changed from Future to 1.13.0
- Owner changed from somebody to ptaeuber
- Status changed from new to assigned
comment:2 Changed 7 years ago by ptaeuber
There was a bug in the variable replacements. After fixing it in OMCompiler/c22c35b the equation cannot be solved explicitly anymore, thus the results are now correct.
comment:3 Changed 7 years ago by casella
shabunin_a@…, please check and close the ticket if everything is fine for you after this fix.
comment:4 Changed 7 years ago by sjoelund.se
- Description modified (diff)
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from assigned to closed
- Type changed from task to defect
I assume it's fixed and will close this.
I had a look on your example, using OMEdit and the Transformational Debugger.
Point 1, as far as I know, the inverse annotation is still not supported by OMC, so it will just ignored.
Point 2: the Inline annotation has a capital "I", if you write annotation(inline = false))] it will simply be ignored.
Point 3: if you don't put an Inline = false annotation in function x_to_y, the backend somehow tries to inline it and solve it explicitly, but doesn't do it correctly:
So, a simple solution to your problem is just to add annotation(Inline = false) in x_to_y
@ptaeuber, can you have a look at the wrong solution of the inverse function?