k-user AT lists.cs.illinois.edu
Subject: K-user mailing list
List archive
- From: Eric Huber <echuber2 AT illinois.edu>
- To: k-user AT lists.cs.illinois.edu
- Subject: Re: [[K-user] ] HOLE and ~> in new K
- Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 03:54:16 -0500
I believe that by specifying the [strict]ness rules on your syntax, you can avoid having to manually declare these intermediate stages.
On May 18, 2017 3:36 AM, "Soha H" <husseinsoh AT gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,It looks like HOLE is not recognizable by K anymore, are there any alternatives? Can someone give an example on how to write something like this in new KE1:Exp + E2:Exp => E1 ~> HOLE + E2 (A)V:Val ~> HOLE + E2 => V + E2I found #freezer in kool_typed_dynamic, is it used for that purpose? Code is belowrule (A:Exp(B:Exps))(C:Exps) => A(B) ~> #freezerFunCall(C) (B)rule (A:Exp[B:Exps])(C:Exps) => A[B] ~> #freezerFunCall(C)rule V:Val ~> #freezerFunCall(C:Exps) => V(C)syntax KItem ::= "#freezerFunCall" "(" K ")"Rules like in (A) above are very flexible, because HOLE resides in the spot where where computation should resume, while in (B) I would need to defined multiple freezers for different contexts.Did I get it right? Is there anything I am missing?Much appreciated!Soha
- [[K-user] ] HOLE and ~> in new K, Soha H, 05/18/2017
- Re: [[K-user] ] HOLE and ~> in new K, Eric Huber, 05/18/2017
- Re: [[K-user] ] HOLE and ~> in new K, Soha H, 05/18/2017
- Re: [[K-user] ] HOLE and ~> in new K, Everett Hildenbrandt, 05/18/2017
- Re: [[K-user] ] HOLE and ~> in new K, Soha H, 05/19/2017
- Re: [[K-user] ] HOLE and ~> in new K, Everett Hildenbrandt, 05/18/2017
- Re: [[K-user] ] HOLE and ~> in new K, Soha H, 05/18/2017
- Re: [[K-user] ] HOLE and ~> in new K, Eric Huber, 05/18/2017
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.