On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Robby Findler > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Actually, on second thought, I'm not yet sure how the typesetting is >> going to go. Say you have something like this: >> >> (define-language L1 >> (a ... somestuff ...)) >> >> (define-metafunction L1 >> f : a -> a >> [(f a) ...somestuff...]) >> >> (define-language L2 >> (a ... somedifferentstuff ...)) >> >> (define-metafunction L2 >> g : a -> a >> [(g a) ...somedifferentstuff...]) >> >> >> (define-union-language L ((L1 l1) (L2 l2))) ;; l1 & l2 are prefixes >> >> (define-metafunction L >> h : l1.a -> l2.a >> [(h l1.a) ...]) >> >> I presume now that you intend to typeset all three metafunctions. How >> should 'f' and 'g' be typeset so as to be clear which one comes from >> which language? > > In most papers that I see, nothing other than context would > disambiguate them, and that would be plenty. > > For example, take the following paper: > http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1596550.1596592 > > That paper has a large number of metafunctions between different > languages, and (a) doesn't disambiguate between which language is > which, and (b) avoids the problems listed here by using different > non-terminal names, and all of it is fine. I spent a lot of time with > this paper, and none of these issues were confusing. See, for > example, the metafunctions on page 8.
Are you arguing for the status quo here? (As you know, this paper was coded up in the current Redex :). Robby _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
