On Sunday, December 13, 2015, Sam Caldwell wrote:
> > I'm not completely following the design goals here because it seems
> > like the desire to reduce only State-Qs could be achieved by writing
> > rules that reduced only State-Qs (not arbitrary states). Or are you
> > saying that State-Qs are o
> I'm not completely following the design goals here because it seems
> like the desire to reduce only State-Qs could be achieved by writing
> rules that reduced only State-Qs (not arbitrary states). Or are you
> saying that State-Qs are only allowed in the context? If so, then you
> could write E
I'm not completely following the design goals here because it seems
like the desire to reduce only State-Qs could be achieved by writing
rules that reduced only State-Qs (not arbitrary states). Or are you
saying that State-Qs are only allowed in the context? If so, then you
could write E differentl
Thanks for clarifying, Robby.
I'm modeling reduction on nested states. In addition to a collection of
straightforward rules, there is a rule that specifies when to reduce a
state-inside-a-state. I can specify this using evaluation contexts, but in
order for the relation to remain deterministic I n
I can see why you might have expected that to work that way.
Unfortunately, it doesn't. The identifiers in those places in
shortcuts (Add2, x, and n in your examples below) are not pattern
positions. They are simply identifiers.
In the code you wrote, one could change the rule's left-hand side to
Hi,
I'm working on a redex model where I want to constrain the shape of terms
used
to fill the hole in an evaluation context. I thought it would be fairly
straightforward to do so using a `with` clause in my reduction-relation, but
I've run into some difficulty, and consulting the docs [1] left me
6 matches
Mail list logo
