Hi there,
I was surprised by this behavior, but it's entirely possible there's a good
reason for it. Bringing it up to understand what that might be. In using
(in-set) or (in-mutable-set) in a for loop, it seems that if the loop is
removing and adding elements to the set it is iterating over, the s
I just kind of made up the algorithm for what Redex does. It seems to
coincide with what one expects for some cases at least. :)
Robby
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 9:09 PM William J. Bowman
wrote:
> I can't seem to use (cross t).
> If it were as easy as (C ::= (cross t) (cross v)), I'd be sufficientl
I can't seem to use (cross t).
If it were as easy as (C ::= (cross t) (cross v)), I'd be sufficiently happy.
But alas:
https://github.com/racket/redex/issues/92
https://github.com/racket/redex/issues/54
https://github.com/racket/redex/pull/147
I'll see about tweaking Redex, but now I'm wonde
There isn't a simple way to do that using the exported stuff currently but
those nonterminals are hiding inside and one could expose them in the
pattern language I think. (TT is accessible via (cross t) I think.)
definitely requires fiddling with intervals but the work would be more
exposing and d
Ah, I see.
Those are the VT and TT I want, but then I also want to define:
(C ::= VT TT)
and take the context-closure of C.
(see attached)
Can I get my hands on the generated VT and TT easily, or would I need to tweak
Redex internals to automate this?
--
William J. Bowman
On Fri, May 03, 2019
(thunk TT) isn't a TT, tho? It will reduce only in a TT.
Robby
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 7:16 PM William J. Bowman
wrote:
>
> That looks like the contexts I want, but it doesn't seem to reduce under a
> (thunk TT) in my example model.
>
> --
> Sent from my phoneamajig
>
> > On May 3, 2019, at 20:
That looks like the contexts I want, but it doesn't seem to reduce under a
(thunk TT) in my example model.
--
Sent from my phoneamajig
> On May 3, 2019, at 20:02, Robby Findler wrote:
>
> Redex, when asked to create the compatible closure, creates a context
> and then uses that. In this case,
Redex, when asked to create the compatible closure, creates a context
and then uses that. In this case, it will create a context something
like this:
TT ::= hole | (\ (x) TT) | (TT v) | (t VT) | (force VT) | (return VT)
VT ::= (thunk TT)
If you want something else (I'm not sure of an algorithm to
Hello all,
I'm trying to define a model in Redex where values and terms are separate
nonterminals, and then define a reduction relation using `compatible-closure`
to lift the small steps to the, well, compatible closure.
Unfortunately, it doesn't do what I expect, presumably because the nontermina
> On Jan 25, 2019, at 7:48 PM, Jack Rosenthal wrote:
>
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 at 23:59 +0100, 'Paulo Matos' via Racket Users wrote:
>> Not sure of the size of the mailing list but I wonder if this is the
>> beginning of the end and we should have instead a plan B.
>
> We could always go back t
I'm humbled,
I'll use `scheme-full`, thanks to you Ben and Leif for your time and
assistance.
I'll keep in mind that technique for better errors.
kr/sjm
On Sat, 4 May 2019, 01:47 Ben Greenman, wrote:
> With `scheme-full`, we were able to build a pdf.
>
--
You received this message because y
It's definitely a TeX issue.
Leif Andersen and I were able to reproduce the error (thanks Leif!).
Then we ran `scribble --latex test.scrbl` to make a .tex file and
`pdflatex test.tex` for a nicer error message.
The message gives a hint that the texlive `scheme-basic` is not enough:
```
cannot o
I have a macro that creates transformer bindings at phases 0 and 1:
(define-syntax (f stx)
(with-syntax ([name (cadr (syntax-e stx))])
#'(begin
(define-syntax name (syntax-id-rules () [_ 1]))
(begin-for-syntax (define-syntax name (syntax-id-rules () [_
2]))
Normally, thi
> https://www.mail-archive.com/racket-users@googlegroups.com/msg40201.html
This was effectively the best writing I could read about syntax-parse
templates and the quirks of using ~@ and ~?.
Thank you so much Alexis for those explanations! You rock.
On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 10:12:15 PM UTC+
If you open up the details of BSL and select to enable tracing, and run my
example, you do indeed see a stack trace in a panel on the right:
(sub2 2)
(reciprocal 0)
However, there are clearly some limitations to this tracing mechanism, when
my student tried to enable tracing on his big-bang prog
Hi Stephen,
Great to hear you're enjoying RN and enjoyed my choice of Automata via
Macros for this issue.
It's always exciting to hear that people are enjoying these issues.
All the best,
Paulo Matos
On 02/05/2019 22:13, Stephen Foster wrote:
> Yes! Years ago, "Automata via Macros" was the pap
16 matches
Mail list logo
