Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

maude-help - Re: [Maude-help] Parametrized programming: unmapped sort...

maude-help AT lists.cs.illinois.edu

Subject: Maude-help mailing list

List archive

Re: [Maude-help] Parametrized programming: unmapped sort...


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Marc Boyer <Marc.Boyer AT onera.fr>
  • To: Maude Help <maude-help AT cs.uiuc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: [Maude-help] Parametrized programming: unmapped sort...
  • Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:21:01 +0100
  • List-archive: <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/maude-help>
  • List-id: <maude-help.cs.uiuc.edu>

Francisco Durán a écrit :
Dear Marc and Min,

But you have to worry about warnings, because sooner or later you may get undesired results. And what is worst, you cannot trust what you get. Maude assumes preregularity, and the user is responsible to get it.

In this case what is happening is just that you are getting to different instantiations of lists that are in the same connected component. You can solve the problem by renaming the conflicting operators. You can find below the compete specification where the LIST{FUNCTION-ARG}{F} modulo gets all the sorts and operators coming from LIST renamed (I'm sure you can find a more appropriate renaming ;)).

Your solution is Maude-compatible but does not address the problem
I am facing.
In your solution, you can no more map any List{Nat}.

My problem is the following: I have List{Nat}, and I want to map
several functions in different parts of the code. For example,
to use INC and in another equation LARGE, on the same List.

Moreover, I do not understand why Maude complains about
pre-regularity.
Let us just consider the sorts, Nat, List{Nat} and List{Arg}
and operator _ _ (my Maude 2.4 complains about this)

Warning: sort declarations for operator __ failed preregularity check on 21 out of 64 sort tuples. First such tuple is (List{Nat}, Nat).

I am considering definition of pre-regularity in the Maude book
(p 50) or in the Maude Manual (p30). it says that, for all signatures
_ _ : S'1 S'2 -> S'3 .
it must exist some least Sorts S1, S2 and S3 such that
Si < S'i

And with declarations
List{Nat} < List{Arg}
NeList{Nat} < NeList{Arg}
I was expecting to have the condition satisfied...

Regards,
Marc Boyer
--
Marc Boyer, Ingenieur de recherche ONERA
Tel: (33) 5.62.25.26.36 DTIM
Fax: (33) 5.62.25.26.52 2, av Edouard Belin
http://www.onera.fr/staff/marc-boyer/ 31055 TOULOUSE Cedex 4




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page