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 <w...@williamjbowman.com> wrote: > 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 wondering what to call this > "closure". > To me, it's the obvious compatible closure, but apparently not. > (It's the one the paper I'm reading calls "the congruence closure", as far > as I > can tell; the definition is missing, hence my Redex modeling.) > > -- > William J. Bowman > > On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 09:00:34PM -0500, Robby Findler wrote: > > 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 documenting and the like, not really deep changes. > > > > But there may be a clever way to make it work with the existing APIs? I > am > > not sure. > > > > Robby > > > > On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 8:38 PM William J. Bowman <w...@williamjbowman.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > 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 at 07:52:09PM -0500, Robby Findler wrote: > > > > (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 < > w...@williamjbowman.com> > > > 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 20:02, Robby Findler < > ro...@cs.northwestern.edu> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > handle > > > > > > this kind of thing without coming with something like that), it > might > > > > > > be simplest to write out the contexts that you want directly and > use > > > > > > context-closure. > > > > > > > > > > > > Robby > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 6:42 PM William J. Bowman < > > > w...@williamjbowman.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 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 > > > nonterminals > > > > > >> for values and terms are mutually defined, but > `compatible-closure` > > > takes > > > > > >> exactly one nonterminal. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Is there a way to do what I want? > > > > > >> See attached. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> -- > > > > > >> William J. Bowman > > > > > >> > > > > > >> -- > > > > > >> 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. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 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. > > > > > > > -- > > 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.
