It is possible you're using the #:cycles-ok argument, as in the program below? If so, that means that the reduction graph has no irreducible terms. So you would need to pass no "expected" arguments to test-->> in order for the test case to pass.
Robby #lang racket (require redex/reduction-semantics) (define-language L (e ::= (loop))) (define red (reduction-relation L (--> (loop) (loop)))) (test-->> red #:cycles-ok (term (loop)) 5) On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Anton Podkopaev <podkoav...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > I'm working on a semantics using Redex. > I've got a strange message from "test-->>" function --- "got nothing". > It is strange, because a term, which I run "test-->>" on, definitely can be > reduced. > For example, I can see lots of its productions in "traces" or "stepper". > > My assumption, that in Redex there is some bound (parameter?) on how many > productions in a trace chain can be. Am I right? Unfortunately, I failed to > find > corresponding information in the Redex reference. > > BR, > Anton Podkopaev > podkopaev.net > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
