>>> "SIGOURE" == SIGOURE Benoit <sigoure.benoit(a)lrde.epita.fr> writes:
> EvalAnd:
> + |[ d & e ]| -> |[ e ]|
> + where <not(real-eq)>(d, "0")
> + EvalAnd:
> + |[ d & e ]| -> |[ false ]|
> + where <real-eq>(d, "0")
> + EvalAnd:
> + |[ e & d ]| -> |[ e ]|
> + where <not(real-eq)>(d, "0")
> + EvalAnd:
> + |[ e & d ]| -> |[ false ]|
> + where <real-eq>(d, "0")
> + EvalAnd:
>> [ true & true ]| -> |[ true ]|
There is no better way to do it? I think you should traverse & and |
operands trying to evaluate them to Booleans, and then there would
remain only the bool cases.
>>> "SIGOURE" == SIGOURE Benoit <sigoure.benoit(a)lrde.epita.fr> writes:
> https://svn.lrde.epita.fr/svn/xrm/trunk
> Index: ChangeLog
> from SIGOURE Benoit <sigoure.benoit(a)lrde.epita.fr>
> Use --verbose instead of --statistics.
> This cancels the note of the previous commit.
I have not seen the removal of --statistics support.
>>> "SIGOURE" == SIGOURE Benoit <sigoure.benoit(a)lrde.epita.fr> writes:
> Index: src/tools/parse-pctl.str
> --- src/tools/parse-pctl.str (revision 58)
> +++ src/tools/parse-pctl.str (working copy)
> @@ -1,23 +1,23 @@
> // Code mostly from parse-java by Martin Bravenboer <martin(a)cs.uu.nl>
> -module parse-prism
> +module parse-pctl
There is obviously a great deal of code duplication between your prism
and pctrl. Can't you do something about it?
>>> "SIGOURE" == SIGOURE Benoit <sigoure.benoit(a)lrde.epita.fr> writes:
> + ** We use two parse tables for performances. One of them
> + (PCTL.tbl) has a ** single start symbol (ModulesFile) and the
> + other (PCTL-StartSymbols) has
> ** several other start symbols. We're doing this because start
> symbol ** selection happens *after* parsing in sglr. So first
> all the alternatives ** are parsed, and then the selected start
> symbol is chosen.
Wow!
>>> "SIGOURE" == SIGOURE Benoit <sigoure.benoit(a)lrde.epita.fr> writes:
> Index: src/syn/prism/StrategoPRISM.sdf
> --- src/syn/prism/StrategoPRISM.sdf (revision 57)
> +++ src/syn/prism/StrategoPRISM.sdf (working copy)
> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
> "|[" Expression "]|" -> StrategoTerm {prefer,cons("ToTerm")}
> "|[" Declaration "]|" -> StrategoTerm {prefer,cons("ToTerm")}
> "|[" Command "]|" -> StrategoTerm {prefer,cons("ToTerm")}
> + "|[" ConstantDef "]|" -> StrategoTerm {prefer,cons("ToTerm")}
> context-free syntax
Can you teach me the different between this file, and the change XRM
56:
Index: src/syn/prism/PRISM-MetaCongruences.sdf
--- src/syn/prism/PRISM-MetaCongruences.sdf (revision 55)
+++ src/syn/prism/PRISM-MetaCongruences.sdf (working copy)
@@ -7,3 +7,4 @@
"|[" Expression "]|" -> StrategoStrategy {prefer,cons("ToStrategy")}
"|[" Declaration "]|" -> StrategoStrategy {prefer,cons("ToStrategy")}
"|[" Command "]|" -> StrategoStrategy {prefer,cons("ToStrategy")}
+ "|[" ConstantDef "]|" -> StrategoStrategy {prefer,cons("ToStrategy")}
?
I can see there is "ToStrategy" ot1h and ToTerm otoh, but what are the
respective roles? And isn't this a sign you'd like to generate the
two files from a common sources?
>>> "SIGOURE" == SIGOURE Benoit <sigoure.benoit(a)lrde.epita.fr> writes:
> Fix boxing of meta-if at Expression level.
> The new test fails because of an ambiguity. This ambiguity is a bit
> tricky and (IMHO) must be resolved at the grammar level.
> Basically we have:
> test1 ? test1-true : test2 ? test2-true : test2-false
> The ambiguity is:
> (test1 ? test1-true : test2) ? test2-true : test2-false
> -or-
> test1 ? test1-true : (test2 ? test2-true : test2-false)
> The second choice seems more natural and that's how it works in C.
> Obviously we can't keep this ambiguity in the grammar.
You might want to read the third problem in this exam.
