Thanks, Mike. I (finally) updated the errata page.
Robby
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 3:24 PM Mike MacHenry wrote:
>
> Also this is a *very* minor point, but I'm pretty sure exercise 13.2 should
> read "Compare with the full grammar from exercise 12.2." rather than to
> compare with 12.1. Maybe
Also this is a *very* minor point, but I'm pretty sure exercise 13.2 should
read "Compare with the full grammar from exercise 12.2." rather than to
compare with 12.1. Maybe not worthy even of the errata page. I don't know.
But if you're going to reprint ever it'd be nice to flag for clean up.
On
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 version is to name it general and to make it
reference the new iswim language I made that has the compatible closure
Hi Mike: it looks to me like you have the right definition in the
sense that it relates the right terms to each other. The rest of the
exercise is just to get you to use Redex's `with` to express it and to
avoid using the name `E` for a non-evaluation context. These are very
minor things! What's
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
5 matches
Mail list logo
