On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 03:55:09PM -0500, Robby Findler wrote: > I can agree that the current definition isn't the best one, but this > one doesn't seem right. I mean, this requires that both sides step? It > is a kind of parallel reduction? That doesn't seem like something > commonly wanted. Yeah, that was a mistake, and not the only one I made in that email. Let me try again.
In this model, I'm actually trying to define two reduction relations and take the compatible-closure of these two mutually defined relations. The first is of the form `t -> t'` and the second of the form `v -> v'`. `v -> v'` is trivial (contains no reductions), but it's compatible closure contains an the following interesting reduction rule. t -> t' ------------ thunk t -> thunk t' It looks like the compatible-closure of `t -> t'` is doing the right thing: it does apply the above rule, as long as I was reducing a `t` to begin with. The real problem is that I can't access the `v -> v'` relation directly, so I can't apply any reduction relation at all to `v`s. This is particularly annoying, since Redex has computed that relation and can use it internally. I can't define a trivial reduction relation (all reduction relations need rules), so I can't manually call `compatible-closure` on this trivial relation. I also can't access `cross` in my surface language to define contexts, so I can't take the context closure without writing out about 50 lines of contexts :(. -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/20190508021903.GW95917%40williamjbowman.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
