Re: [racket-users] Formal semantics of PLT Redex

2021-12-21 Thread Mallku Ernesto Soldevila Raffa
Wow!, that was fast!
No need to thank, I'm just using your awesome tool to perform random 
testing.
Thanks,
Mallku

El martes, 21 de diciembre de 2021 a las 18:22:09 UTC-3, Robby Findler 
escribió:

> There was a bug in the matcher; I've pushed a fix. 
>
> With that fix, you'll get
>
> (list
>  (match
>   (list
>(bind 'A '(hole (hole hole)))
>(bind 'x '(hole (hole hole))
>
> as the result. That's different than the matcher because the pattern `A` 
> is really shorthand for something like `(name A (nt A))`, where the `name` 
> part introduces the name and the `nt` pattern matching construct matches 
> only non-terminals without binding a name.
>
> Thanks for finding the bug!
>
> Robby
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 2:50 PM Mallku Ernesto Soldevila Raffa wrote:
>
>> Just to clarify, I understand that the several binds of x correspond to
>> the several patterns name in the productions, and the pattern against with
>> we are matching, but I would have expected for the firsts to be discarded,
>> or, if still considered in the resulting match for some reason, that I 
>> don't
>> know, I would have expected for the application of the constraint of 
>> names, 
>> that would have rendered #f the match.
>>
>> thanks!,
>> Mallku
>>
>> El martes, 21 de diciembre de 2021 a las 17:38:28 UTC-3, Mallku Ernesto 
>> Soldevila Raffa escribió:
>>
>>> Hi to everyone!,
>>> I'm trying to test the mechanization of Redex's semantics done in [1],
>>> against the present version of racket, 8.3. I'm using the 
>>> random-match-test.rkt 
>>>
>>> module from [1] to generate random grammars, patterns and terms, and to 
>>> test them
>>> using the proposed mechanization of Redex in [1] and the actual 
>>> implementation of
>>> it, in racket 8.3.
>>>
>>> In doing it, I've found an example that I cannot explain in terms of my 
>>> understanding 
>>> of the behavior of the name pattern:
>>>
>>> (define-language L [A (name x B)]
>>>[B (hole (name x (hole hole)))])
>>>
>>> (redex-match L (name x A)
>>>(term (hole (hole hole
>>>
>>> The result of the previous match is:
>>>
>>> (list (match (list
>>>   (bind 'A '(hole (hole hole)))
>>>   (bind 'x '(hole hole))
>>>   (bind 'x '(hole (hole hole)))
>>>   (bind 'x '(hole (hole hole))
>>>
>>> Which shows that 'x' is bound to different, non-equivalent, terms. While
>>> I've never used the pattern name explicitly in such a way, while 
>>> defining
>>> grammars, I'm still curious about what is going on here. Even more, I 
>>> would
>>> have thought that the following match would return the same result as the
>>> previous:
>>>
>>> (redex-match L (name x (name x B))
>>>(term (hole (hole hole
>>>
>>> where I just replaced the non-term A by the rhs of its only production, 
>>> but
>>> what I obtain is:
>>>
>>> #f
>>>
>>> As a side note, the mechanization of Redex in [1] just returns something
>>> equivalent to:
>>>
>>> (bind 'x '(hole (hole hole)))
>>>
>>> In both cases. Does anyone understand the behavior of the shown example
>>> under racket 8.3?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance!,
>>> Mallku
>>>
>>> [1] : https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-25318-8_27
>>> El jueves, 9 de diciembre de 2021 a las 13:20:31 UTC-3, Mallku Ernesto 
>>> Soldevila Raffa escribió:
>>>
 Thanks a lot for the info! If I found any mismatches, I'll report it.

 Regards,
 Mallku

 El miércoles, 8 de diciembre de 2021 a las 23:32:25 UTC-3, Robby 
 Findler escribió:

> I'm sorry, my sentence was ambiguous! I'm saying that I don't know of 
> any other work that is specifically focused on the semantics of Redex. 
> (Of 
> course, there may be work I'm not aware of.)
>
> The paper is still a good match, I believe, yes. You're right that the 
> syntactic checks for well-formed grammars have tightened since that era, 
> but if the program is valid, then I think it should match; the underlying 
> algorithms have not changed, only bug fixes have happened.
>
> Of course, if you find that this isn't the case, I'd be very 
> interested to hear more :)
>
> Robby
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 6:34 PM Mallku Ernesto Soldevila Raffa wrote:
>
>> I beg your pardon!, I'm not understanding the answer, what is it that
>> might be specific of Redex? 
>>
>> I suspect that the answer is that there isn't some recent work on 
>> formal 
>> semantics specifically about Redex. In that case, does anybody know 
>> if the 
>> already mentioned paper [1] is still a good match for today's 
>> semantics of 
>> Redex? The paper provides a mechanization of the model in Redex, 
>> together 
>> with some tools to test it. Of interest is a tool that asks Redex to 
>> generate 
>> random patterns and terms that match against them, and tests if the 
>> mechanized model is 

Re: [racket-users] Formal semantics of PLT Redex

2021-12-21 Thread Robby Findler
There was a bug in the matcher; I've pushed a fix.

With that fix, you'll get

(list
 (match
  (list
   (bind 'A '(hole (hole hole)))
   (bind 'x '(hole (hole hole))

as the result. That's different than the matcher because the pattern `A` is
really shorthand for something like `(name A (nt A))`, where the `name`
part introduces the name and the `nt` pattern matching construct matches
only non-terminals without binding a name.

Thanks for finding the bug!

Robby


On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 2:50 PM Mallku Ernesto Soldevila Raffa <
mallkuerne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just to clarify, I understand that the several binds of x correspond to
> the several patterns name in the productions, and the pattern against with
> we are matching, but I would have expected for the firsts to be discarded,
> or, if still considered in the resulting match for some reason, that I
> don't
> know, I would have expected for the application of the constraint of
> names,
> that would have rendered #f the match.
>
> thanks!,
> Mallku
>
> El martes, 21 de diciembre de 2021 a las 17:38:28 UTC-3, Mallku Ernesto
> Soldevila Raffa escribió:
>
>> Hi to everyone!,
>> I'm trying to test the mechanization of Redex's semantics done in [1],
>> against the present version of racket, 8.3. I'm using the 
>> random-match-test.rkt
>>
>> module from [1] to generate random grammars, patterns and terms, and to
>> test them
>> using the proposed mechanization of Redex in [1] and the actual
>> implementation of
>> it, in racket 8.3.
>>
>> In doing it, I've found an example that I cannot explain in terms of my
>> understanding
>> of the behavior of the name pattern:
>>
>> (define-language L [A (name x B)]
>>[B (hole (name x (hole hole)))])
>>
>> (redex-match L (name x A)
>>(term (hole (hole hole
>>
>> The result of the previous match is:
>>
>> (list (match (list
>>   (bind 'A '(hole (hole hole)))
>>   (bind 'x '(hole hole))
>>   (bind 'x '(hole (hole hole)))
>>   (bind 'x '(hole (hole hole))
>>
>> Which shows that 'x' is bound to different, non-equivalent, terms. While
>> I've never used the pattern name explicitly in such a way, while defining
>> grammars, I'm still curious about what is going on here. Even more, I
>> would
>> have thought that the following match would return the same result as the
>> previous:
>>
>> (redex-match L (name x (name x B))
>>(term (hole (hole hole
>>
>> where I just replaced the non-term A by the rhs of its only production,
>> but
>> what I obtain is:
>>
>> #f
>>
>> As a side note, the mechanization of Redex in [1] just returns something
>> equivalent to:
>>
>> (bind 'x '(hole (hole hole)))
>>
>> In both cases. Does anyone understand the behavior of the shown example
>> under racket 8.3?
>>
>> Thanks in advance!,
>> Mallku
>>
>> [1] : https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-25318-8_27
>> El jueves, 9 de diciembre de 2021 a las 13:20:31 UTC-3, Mallku Ernesto
>> Soldevila Raffa escribió:
>>
>>> Thanks a lot for the info! If I found any mismatches, I'll report it.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Mallku
>>>
>>> El miércoles, 8 de diciembre de 2021 a las 23:32:25 UTC-3, Robby Findler
>>> escribió:
>>>
 I'm sorry, my sentence was ambiguous! I'm saying that I don't know of
 any other work that is specifically focused on the semantics of Redex. (Of
 course, there may be work I'm not aware of.)

 The paper is still a good match, I believe, yes. You're right that the
 syntactic checks for well-formed grammars have tightened since that era,
 but if the program is valid, then I think it should match; the underlying
 algorithms have not changed, only bug fixes have happened.

 Of course, if you find that this isn't the case, I'd be very interested
 to hear more :)

 Robby



 On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 6:34 PM Mallku Ernesto Soldevila Raffa <
 mallku...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I beg your pardon!, I'm not understanding the answer, what is it that
> might be specific of Redex?
>
> I suspect that the answer is that there isn't some recent work on
> formal
> semantics specifically about Redex. In that case, does anybody know if
> the
> already mentioned paper [1] is still a good match for today's
> semantics of
> Redex? The paper provides a mechanization of the model in Redex,
> together
> with some tools to test it. Of interest is a tool that asks Redex to
> generate
> random patterns and terms that match against them, and tests if the
> mechanized model is capable of reproducing the matching (or that is
> what
> I suspect that the tests are doing :P ). It was possible to run the
> mechanization
> on a recent version of Redex, but the generated patterns are
> ill-formed
> (e.g., in-hole p1 p2, where p1 contains more than 1 hole). Of course I
> could
> provide more 

Re: [racket-users] Formal semantics of PLT Redex

2021-12-21 Thread Mallku Ernesto Soldevila Raffa
Just to clarify, I understand that the several binds of x correspond to
the several patterns name in the productions, and the pattern against with
we are matching, but I would have expected for the firsts to be discarded,
or, if still considered in the resulting match for some reason, that I don't
know, I would have expected for the application of the constraint of names, 
that would have rendered #f the match.

thanks!,
Mallku

El martes, 21 de diciembre de 2021 a las 17:38:28 UTC-3, Mallku Ernesto 
Soldevila Raffa escribió:

> Hi to everyone!,
> I'm trying to test the mechanization of Redex's semantics done in [1],
> against the present version of racket, 8.3. I'm using the 
> random-match-test.rkt 
>
> module from [1] to generate random grammars, patterns and terms, and to 
> test them
> using the proposed mechanization of Redex in [1] and the actual 
> implementation of
> it, in racket 8.3.
>
> In doing it, I've found an example that I cannot explain in terms of my 
> understanding 
> of the behavior of the name pattern:
>
> (define-language L [A (name x B)]
>[B (hole (name x (hole hole)))])
>
> (redex-match L (name x A)
>(term (hole (hole hole
>
> The result of the previous match is:
>
> (list (match (list
>   (bind 'A '(hole (hole hole)))
>   (bind 'x '(hole hole))
>   (bind 'x '(hole (hole hole)))
>   (bind 'x '(hole (hole hole))
>
> Which shows that 'x' is bound to different, non-equivalent, terms. While
> I've never used the pattern name explicitly in such a way, while defining
> grammars, I'm still curious about what is going on here. Even more, I would
> have thought that the following match would return the same result as the
> previous:
>
> (redex-match L (name x (name x B))
>(term (hole (hole hole
>
> where I just replaced the non-term A by the rhs of its only production, but
> what I obtain is:
>
> #f
>
> As a side note, the mechanization of Redex in [1] just returns something
> equivalent to:
>
> (bind 'x '(hole (hole hole)))
>
> In both cases. Does anyone understand the behavior of the shown example
> under racket 8.3?
>
> Thanks in advance!,
> Mallku
>
> [1] : https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-25318-8_27
> El jueves, 9 de diciembre de 2021 a las 13:20:31 UTC-3, Mallku Ernesto 
> Soldevila Raffa escribió:
>
>> Thanks a lot for the info! If I found any mismatches, I'll report it.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mallku
>>
>> El miércoles, 8 de diciembre de 2021 a las 23:32:25 UTC-3, Robby Findler 
>> escribió:
>>
>>> I'm sorry, my sentence was ambiguous! I'm saying that I don't know of 
>>> any other work that is specifically focused on the semantics of Redex. (Of 
>>> course, there may be work I'm not aware of.)
>>>
>>> The paper is still a good match, I believe, yes. You're right that the 
>>> syntactic checks for well-formed grammars have tightened since that era, 
>>> but if the program is valid, then I think it should match; the underlying 
>>> algorithms have not changed, only bug fixes have happened.
>>>
>>> Of course, if you find that this isn't the case, I'd be very interested 
>>> to hear more :)
>>>
>>> Robby
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 6:34 PM Mallku Ernesto Soldevila Raffa <
>>> mallku...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 I beg your pardon!, I'm not understanding the answer, what is it that
 might be specific of Redex? 

 I suspect that the answer is that there isn't some recent work on 
 formal 
 semantics specifically about Redex. In that case, does anybody know if 
 the 
 already mentioned paper [1] is still a good match for today's semantics 
 of 
 Redex? The paper provides a mechanization of the model in Redex, 
 together 
 with some tools to test it. Of interest is a tool that asks Redex to 
 generate 
 random patterns and terms that match against them, and tests if the 
 mechanized model is capable of reproducing the matching (or that is what
 I suspect that the tests are doing :P ). It was possible to run the 
 mechanization 
 on a recent version of Redex, but the generated patterns are ill-formed 
 (e.g., in-hole p1 p2, where p1 contains more than 1 hole). Of course I 
 could
 provide more details about the error, but I don't know if it is of 
 interest, it's
 a mechanization written for the Redex version that comes with Racket 5.*
 or something like that.

 Thanks!,
 Mallku


 [1] : https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-25318-8_27

 El miércoles, 8 de diciembre de 2021 a las 21:03:44 UTC-3, Robby 
 Findler escribió:

> I think that might be it specifically about redex, I am sorry to say. 
>
> Robby
>
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 5:28 PM Mallku Ernesto Soldevila Raffa <
> mallku...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi community!,
>> I'm interested in understanding the semantics of 

Re: [racket-users] Formal semantics of PLT Redex

2021-12-21 Thread Mallku Ernesto Soldevila Raffa
Hi to everyone!,
I'm trying to test the mechanization of Redex's semantics done in [1],
against the present version of racket, 8.3. I'm using the random-match-test.rkt 

module from [1] to generate random grammars, patterns and terms, and to 
test them
using the proposed mechanization of Redex in [1] and the actual 
implementation of
it, in racket 8.3.

In doing it, I've found an example that I cannot explain in terms of my 
understanding 
of the behavior of the name pattern:

(define-language L [A (name x B)]
   [B (hole (name x (hole hole)))])

(redex-match L (name x A)
   (term (hole (hole hole

The result of the previous match is:

(list (match (list
  (bind 'A '(hole (hole hole)))
  (bind 'x '(hole hole))
  (bind 'x '(hole (hole hole)))
  (bind 'x '(hole (hole hole))

Which shows that 'x' is bound to different, non-equivalent, terms. While
I've never used the pattern name explicitly in such a way, while defining
grammars, I'm still curious about what is going on here. Even more, I would
have thought that the following match would return the same result as the
previous:

(redex-match L (name x (name x B))
   (term (hole (hole hole

where I just replaced the non-term A by the rhs of its only production, but
what I obtain is:

#f

As a side note, the mechanization of Redex in [1] just returns something
equivalent to:

(bind 'x '(hole (hole hole)))

In both cases. Does anyone understand the behavior of the shown example
under racket 8.3?

Thanks in advance!,
Mallku

[1] : https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-25318-8_27
El jueves, 9 de diciembre de 2021 a las 13:20:31 UTC-3, Mallku Ernesto 
Soldevila Raffa escribió:

> Thanks a lot for the info! If I found any mismatches, I'll report it.
>
> Regards,
> Mallku
>
> El miércoles, 8 de diciembre de 2021 a las 23:32:25 UTC-3, Robby Findler 
> escribió:
>
>> I'm sorry, my sentence was ambiguous! I'm saying that I don't know of any 
>> other work that is specifically focused on the semantics of Redex. (Of 
>> course, there may be work I'm not aware of.)
>>
>> The paper is still a good match, I believe, yes. You're right that the 
>> syntactic checks for well-formed grammars have tightened since that era, 
>> but if the program is valid, then I think it should match; the underlying 
>> algorithms have not changed, only bug fixes have happened.
>>
>> Of course, if you find that this isn't the case, I'd be very interested 
>> to hear more :)
>>
>> Robby
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 6:34 PM Mallku Ernesto Soldevila Raffa <
>> mallku...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I beg your pardon!, I'm not understanding the answer, what is it that
>>> might be specific of Redex? 
>>>
>>> I suspect that the answer is that there isn't some recent work on formal 
>>> semantics specifically about Redex. In that case, does anybody know if 
>>> the 
>>> already mentioned paper [1] is still a good match for today's semantics 
>>> of 
>>> Redex? The paper provides a mechanization of the model in Redex, 
>>> together 
>>> with some tools to test it. Of interest is a tool that asks Redex to 
>>> generate 
>>> random patterns and terms that match against them, and tests if the 
>>> mechanized model is capable of reproducing the matching (or that is what
>>> I suspect that the tests are doing :P ). It was possible to run the 
>>> mechanization 
>>> on a recent version of Redex, but the generated patterns are ill-formed 
>>> (e.g., in-hole p1 p2, where p1 contains more than 1 hole). Of course I 
>>> could
>>> provide more details about the error, but I don't know if it is of 
>>> interest, it's
>>> a mechanization written for the Redex version that comes with Racket 5.*
>>> or something like that.
>>>
>>> Thanks!,
>>> Mallku
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] : https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-25318-8_27
>>>
>>> El miércoles, 8 de diciembre de 2021 a las 21:03:44 UTC-3, Robby Findler 
>>> escribió:
>>>
 I think that might be it specifically about redex, I am sorry to say. 

 Robby

 On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 5:28 PM Mallku Ernesto Soldevila Raffa <
 mallku...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi community!,
> I'm interested in understanding the semantics of PLT Redex, since we 
> are working on a tool
> to translate fragments of Redex models to Coq. At the moment, we just 
> have a 
> mechanization in Coq of the semantics proposed in a ~10 years old 
> paper [1]. Does 
> anybody know if there is an updated work on formal semantics of Redex?
>
> Thanks in advance!,
> Mallku
>
> [1] : https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-25318-8_27 
>
> -- 
> 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...@googlegroups.com.
> To view 

Re: [racket-users] Formal semantics of PLT Redex

2021-12-09 Thread Mallku Ernesto Soldevila Raffa
Thanks a lot for the info! If I found any mismatches, I'll report it.

Regards,
Mallku

El miércoles, 8 de diciembre de 2021 a las 23:32:25 UTC-3, Robby Findler 
escribió:

> I'm sorry, my sentence was ambiguous! I'm saying that I don't know of any 
> other work that is specifically focused on the semantics of Redex. (Of 
> course, there may be work I'm not aware of.)
>
> The paper is still a good match, I believe, yes. You're right that the 
> syntactic checks for well-formed grammars have tightened since that era, 
> but if the program is valid, then I think it should match; the underlying 
> algorithms have not changed, only bug fixes have happened.
>
> Of course, if you find that this isn't the case, I'd be very interested to 
> hear more :)
>
> Robby
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 6:34 PM Mallku Ernesto Soldevila Raffa <
> mallku...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I beg your pardon!, I'm not understanding the answer, what is it that
>> might be specific of Redex? 
>>
>> I suspect that the answer is that there isn't some recent work on formal 
>> semantics specifically about Redex. In that case, does anybody know if 
>> the 
>> already mentioned paper [1] is still a good match for today's semantics 
>> of 
>> Redex? The paper provides a mechanization of the model in Redex, together 
>> with some tools to test it. Of interest is a tool that asks Redex to 
>> generate 
>> random patterns and terms that match against them, and tests if the 
>> mechanized model is capable of reproducing the matching (or that is what
>> I suspect that the tests are doing :P ). It was possible to run the 
>> mechanization 
>> on a recent version of Redex, but the generated patterns are ill-formed 
>> (e.g., in-hole p1 p2, where p1 contains more than 1 hole). Of course I 
>> could
>> provide more details about the error, but I don't know if it is of 
>> interest, it's
>> a mechanization written for the Redex version that comes with Racket 5.*
>> or something like that.
>>
>> Thanks!,
>> Mallku
>>
>>
>> [1] : https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-25318-8_27
>>
>> El miércoles, 8 de diciembre de 2021 a las 21:03:44 UTC-3, Robby Findler 
>> escribió:
>>
>>> I think that might be it specifically about redex, I am sorry to say. 
>>>
>>> Robby
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 5:28 PM Mallku Ernesto Soldevila Raffa <
>>> mallku...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Hi community!,
 I'm interested in understanding the semantics of PLT Redex, since we 
 are working on a tool
 to translate fragments of Redex models to Coq. At the moment, we just 
 have a 
 mechanization in Coq of the semantics proposed in a ~10 years old paper 
 [1]. Does 
 anybody know if there is an updated work on formal semantics of Redex?

 Thanks in advance!,
 Mallku

 [1] : https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-25318-8_27 

 -- 
 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...@googlegroups.com.
 To view this discussion on the web visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/d794dd4d-34c7-4de8-a4cd-a437dfcc630cn%40googlegroups.com
  
 
 .

>>> -- 
>> 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...@googlegroups.com.
>>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/eba71355-dd8b-4eaa-8f0a-934a50d05ccen%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>

-- 
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/14b8b2d5-41e8-4864-b194-e968a2043443n%40googlegroups.com.


Re: [racket-users] Formal semantics of PLT Redex

2021-12-08 Thread Robby Findler
I'm sorry, my sentence was ambiguous! I'm saying that I don't know of any
other work that is specifically focused on the semantics of Redex. (Of
course, there may be work I'm not aware of.)

The paper is still a good match, I believe, yes. You're right that the
syntactic checks for well-formed grammars have tightened since that era,
but if the program is valid, then I think it should match; the underlying
algorithms have not changed, only bug fixes have happened.

Of course, if you find that this isn't the case, I'd be very interested to
hear more :)

Robby



On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 6:34 PM Mallku Ernesto Soldevila Raffa <
mallkuerne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I beg your pardon!, I'm not understanding the answer, what is it that
> might be specific of Redex?
>
> I suspect that the answer is that there isn't some recent work on formal
> semantics specifically about Redex. In that case, does anybody know if the
> already mentioned paper [1] is still a good match for today's semantics of
> Redex? The paper provides a mechanization of the model in Redex, together
> with some tools to test it. Of interest is a tool that asks Redex to
> generate
> random patterns and terms that match against them, and tests if the
> mechanized model is capable of reproducing the matching (or that is what
> I suspect that the tests are doing :P ). It was possible to run the
> mechanization
> on a recent version of Redex, but the generated patterns are ill-formed
> (e.g., in-hole p1 p2, where p1 contains more than 1 hole). Of course I
> could
> provide more details about the error, but I don't know if it is of
> interest, it's
> a mechanization written for the Redex version that comes with Racket 5.*
> or something like that.
>
> Thanks!,
> Mallku
>
>
> [1] : https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-25318-8_27
>
> El miércoles, 8 de diciembre de 2021 a las 21:03:44 UTC-3, Robby Findler
> escribió:
>
>> I think that might be it specifically about redex, I am sorry to say.
>>
>> Robby
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 5:28 PM Mallku Ernesto Soldevila Raffa <
>> mallku...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi community!,
>>> I'm interested in understanding the semantics of PLT Redex, since we are
>>> working on a tool
>>> to translate fragments of Redex models to Coq. At the moment, we just
>>> have a
>>> mechanization in Coq of the semantics proposed in a ~10 years old paper
>>> [1]. Does
>>> anybody know if there is an updated work on formal semantics of Redex?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance!,
>>> Mallku
>>>
>>> [1] : https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-25318-8_27
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/d794dd4d-34c7-4de8-a4cd-a437dfcc630cn%40googlegroups.com
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>> --
> 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.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/eba71355-dd8b-4eaa-8f0a-934a50d05ccen%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAL3TdOOxK%3Dwo6B0a2PDzVc86G4%3Dc9b%3DxHc7AqYuBD_4KOc1_Aw%40mail.gmail.com.


Re: [racket-users] Formal semantics of PLT Redex

2021-12-08 Thread Mallku Ernesto Soldevila Raffa
I beg your pardon!, I'm not understanding the answer, what is it that
might be specific of Redex? 

I suspect that the answer is that there isn't some recent work on formal 
semantics specifically about Redex. In that case, does anybody know if the 
already mentioned paper [1] is still a good match for today's semantics of 
Redex? The paper provides a mechanization of the model in Redex, together 
with some tools to test it. Of interest is a tool that asks Redex to 
generate 
random patterns and terms that match against them, and tests if the 
mechanized model is capable of reproducing the matching (or that is what
I suspect that the tests are doing :P ). It was possible to run the 
mechanization 
on a recent version of Redex, but the generated patterns are ill-formed 
(e.g., in-hole p1 p2, where p1 contains more than 1 hole). Of course I could
provide more details about the error, but I don't know if it is of 
interest, it's
a mechanization written for the Redex version that comes with Racket 5.*
or something like that.

Thanks!,
Mallku


[1] : https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-25318-8_27

El miércoles, 8 de diciembre de 2021 a las 21:03:44 UTC-3, Robby Findler 
escribió:

> I think that might be it specifically about redex, I am sorry to say. 
>
> Robby
>
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 5:28 PM Mallku Ernesto Soldevila Raffa <
> mallku...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi community!,
>> I'm interested in understanding the semantics of PLT Redex, since we are 
>> working on a tool
>> to translate fragments of Redex models to Coq. At the moment, we just 
>> have a 
>> mechanization in Coq of the semantics proposed in a ~10 years old paper 
>> [1]. Does 
>> anybody know if there is an updated work on formal semantics of Redex?
>>
>> Thanks in advance!,
>> Mallku
>>
>> [1] : https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-25318-8_27 
>>
>> -- 
>> 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...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/d794dd4d-34c7-4de8-a4cd-a437dfcc630cn%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>

-- 
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/eba71355-dd8b-4eaa-8f0a-934a50d05ccen%40googlegroups.com.


Re: [racket-users] Formal semantics of PLT Redex

2021-12-08 Thread Robby Findler
I think that might be it specifically about redex, I am sorry to say.

Robby

On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 5:28 PM Mallku Ernesto Soldevila Raffa <
mallkuerne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi community!,
> I'm interested in understanding the semantics of PLT Redex, since we are
> working on a tool
> to translate fragments of Redex models to Coq. At the moment, we just have
> a
> mechanization in Coq of the semantics proposed in a ~10 years old paper
> [1]. Does
> anybody know if there is an updated work on formal semantics of Redex?
>
> Thanks in advance!,
> Mallku
>
> [1] : https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-25318-8_27
>
> --
> 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.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/d794dd4d-34c7-4de8-a4cd-a437dfcc630cn%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAL3TdOMcaBdpksLf2u4o-sw1EW2%3DpYTMgnNaCdaHR_K5uev4cA%40mail.gmail.com.