Hi Kish, Yes, when I added this I thought exactly the same. However, I decided to include the c argument to avoid confusion: the values of c (or as you say the upper bound on the load variables) actually defines how well the constraint is propagated. So what I tried to avoid by including c is that users first post the binpacking constraint and only then adjust the load variables...
I know, matter of taste. Cheers Christian -- Christian Schulte, Professor of Computer Science, KTH, www.gecode.org/~schulte/ -----Original Message----- From: users-boun...@gecode.org [mailto:users-boun...@gecode.org] On Behalf Of Kish Shen Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 6:52 PM To: users@gecode.org Subject: [gecode-users] multi-dimensional bin-packing constraint - bin capacities Hi, I am updating ECLiPSe's Gecode interface to Gecode 4.3, and I am adding support for the multi-dimensional bin-packing constraint. I have a small question about the arguments for the constraint: binpacking(home, d, l, b, s, c) has the capacities argument c that is not found in the 1-D bin-packing constraint: binpacking(home, l, b, s) My understanding is that for this form of the constraint, c is implicitly specified by l, the loads, i.e. the domains of each bin is specified by the domain in the load variable for that bin. It seems to me that the values for c is also implicitly specified for the multi-dimensional case, and can be derived from l, as the maximum domain value of all the variables in l for each dimension. I am thinking of providing the constraint in this form so that it looks more like the 1-D version. Does this make sense? Cheers, Kish _______________________________________________ Gecode users mailing list users@gecode.org https://www.gecode.org/mailman/listinfo/gecode-users _______________________________________________ Gecode users mailing list users@gecode.org https://www.gecode.org/mailman/listinfo/gecode-users
