nice to flag for clean up.
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 3:45 PM Mike MacHenry
wrote:
> Hm... so I guess I'm "using a with clause" like the book requests if I'm
> redeveloping the iswim-general reduction relation myself, even if the only
> difference from the book's
on definition to lift the axioms to
> arbitrary contexts. You would also not call this new (racket-level)
> definition `iswim-standard` (since it isn't the standard reduction).
>
> Robby
>
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 12:47 PM Mike MacHenry
> wrote:
> >
> > Hey
Hey everyone,
I am a little confused about Exercise 12.6 from Semantics Engineering with
PLT-Redex. The exercise is as follows:
"Formulate a general reduction relation for ISWIM using a with clause. Use
traces to demonstrate that programs may be reduced to values along several
different paths in
You need to apply the function to 'John, with a single quote in front of
it. The word John without that quote is just a variable reference to
something that you have not actually defined.
On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 11:34 PM Hassan Shahin wrote:
> I have this definition for a procedure:
>
> (define
ding the date of
the change.)
Robby
On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 4:41 AM Mike MacHenry
wrote:
>
> Hey everyone,
>
> I'm having an issue with one of the examples from Semantics Engineering
With PLT Redex. Specifically in 12.3 on page 225, the definition for the
iswim-standard reductio
Hey everyone,
I'm having an issue with one of the examples from Semantics Engineering
With PLT Redex. Specifically in 12.3 on page 225, the definition for the
iswim-standard reduction relation. As printed in the book, I get the error
"reduction-relation: shortcut name may not be a non-terminal
6 matches
Mail list logo
