The -=> operator can be used in place of --> to automatically remove transitions that would result in a self-loop.
This often helps with readability.
For example, the following two actions are equivalent:
( x[i-1]==1 && x[i+1]==1 -=> x[i]:=2; )
( x[i-1]==1 && x[i]!=2 && x[i+1]==1 --> x[i]:=2; )
The permit and forbid keywords are used to specify the forms of allowed and disallowed actions available to synthesis.
If permit does not appear, then it is equivalent to permitting all actions.
If forbid appears, then the specified form may not be used, even if it matches a permit statement.
Dining philosophers.
Let us look at the Dining Philosophers Problem specification, which uses three permit/forbid statements.
For this analysis, we only need to know that each philosopher P[i] can write three binary variables: hungry[i], chopstick[L], and chopstick[R] that denote whether the philosopher is hungry, has the chopstick to eir left, and has the chopstick to eir right.
The predicate HasChopsticks evaluates to true \textiff the philosopher has both chopsticks.
The first action constraint allows actions where hungry[i] remains constant.
permit: ( 1==1 --> hungry[i]; );
This uses the shorthand hungry[i]; in place of hungry[i]:=hungry[i];.
Since neither of the chopstick variables are mentioned in the assignment, they may be changed in any way (without violating a forbid constraint).
This behavior differs from the syntax of normal actions, where unassigned variables are assumed to stay constant.
The second action constraint allows actions that change hungry[i] to 0 while keeping both chopsticks.
permit: ( HasChopsticks && hungry[i]==1 --> hungry[i]:=0; _; );
This uses the shorthand _; to keep the unlisted variables at the same values; i.e., chopstick[L]:=chopstick[L]; chopstick[R]:=chopstick[R];.
The final action constraint disallows actions that change both chopstick variables at the same time.
forbid: ( 1==1 --> chopstick[L]:=1-chopstick[L]; chopstick[R]:=1-chopstick[R]; );
Note that since hungry[i] is not assigned, cases where the variable stays the same or is changed are both forbidden.
However, since only the first permit statement allows chopsticks to change, we are only constraining actions where hungry[i] does not change.
Self-disabling processes.
When using permit or forbid, synthesis may find a protocol where processes are not self-disabling.
This is necessary for the dining philosophers because a philosopher must be able to perform multiple actions in sequence: pick up a chopstick, pick up the other, finish being hungry, set down a chopstick, and set down the other.
However, you may wish to use permit and forbid to give hints to synthesis.
In this case, use the -disabling flag to enforce self-disabling processes.
When a variable is marked with random write, it is assigned randomly by a process without violating safety constraints (e.g., closure).
In the unidirectional ring coloring protocol, the following action is used to randomly select a value for x[i] that differs from x[i-1.
( x[i-1]==x[i] --> x[i]:=_; )
Note that this process is self-disabling in the sense that it can disable itself by picking certain random values.