I somehow failed to get back to this before the release, and so the
currently available version of Redex will produce syntax errors for
such models. Lets hope it isn't too painful for people and if it is,
we can maybe try to unfix it.
Robby
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 3:30 PM, William J. Bowman
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 08:42:25PM -0600, Robby Findler wrote:
> The reason the "E_1" and the "e_1" are treated differently is that the
> "e" is mentioned in "binding" position of the shortcut. That is what
> makes it special. Does this make sense?
Yes, thank you.
> (Have a read of the paragraph
The reason the "E_1" and the "e_1" are treated differently is that the
"e" is mentioned in "binding" position of the shortcut. That is what
makes it special. Does this make sense? (Have a read of the paragraph
in the redex docs for reduction-semantics that talks about shortcuts
and let me know if
I noticed this last week when I upgraded Redex for other reasons. It
broke one of my models, and I was momentarily confused. In fact, I
took the error message to mean I had somehow introduced an error and
spent some time staring at my tests to see if I had introduced a
syntax error. I only fixed
I've recently pushed a change to Redex
(https://github.com/racket/redex/commit/cbb2d88b) that disallows the
names of non-terminals in shortcuts in reduction relations. I did this
after seeing someone (quite reasonably!) assume that using a
non-terminal there meant the shortcut would work only for
5 matches
Mail list logo
