Maude-help mailing list

[Scott Christley <schristley AT mac.com>]

Hello,

I found a way to implement using just a single general rule!  Instead of 
using the two rules, I changed my "add" operator to work on both conditions I 
had for my rules.  This significantly reduced the number of rewrites because 
its manipulating my "list" in a functional way instead of using rules.

cheers
Scott

On Feb 7, 2011, at 2:57 PM, Scott Christley wrote:

> 
> Thanks, I ended up changing the two conditional rules which use a 
> contains() operator that checks for existence, and yes I intend to use 
> search to explore alternative possibilities.  After experimenting I 
> answered the question myself, it would appear that a general 
> non-conditional rule does match.
> 
> If you are interested, here is the code I have.  After loading the maude 
> file, do a rewrite:
> 
> rewrite altMucusModel .
> 
> you will get the result:
> 
> rewrite in MUCUS_MODEL : altMucusModel .
> rewrites: 11 in 0ms cpu (0ms real) (11000000 rewrites/second)
> result specification: spec(BKR(emptyStatement), MS(NM(variable(muc2-mRNA), 
> ODE(hillFunction(variable(muc2-gene)) 
> linearFunction(variable(muc2-mRNA))))))
> 
> So the thing to note is ODE() which contains two terms.  This is the result 
> that I want, one term from a [transcribe] rule and another term from a 
> [decay] rule.
> 
> If you look in the MAPPING system module, you will see the rules for 
> [transcribe] and [decay].  If you comment out the two conditional rules, 
> then uncomment the two non-conditional rules, this is the answer from the 
> rewrite:
> 
> rewrite in MUCUS_MODEL : altMucusModel .
> rewrites: 4 in 0ms cpu (0ms real) (4000000 rewrites/second)
> result specification: spec(BKR(emptyStatement), MS(NM(variable(muc2-mRNA), 
> ODE(hillFunction(variable(muc2-gene))))
>       NM(variable(muc2-mRNA), ODE(linearFunction(variable(muc2-mRNA))))))
> 
> Which is not what I want, because it creates two separate ODE() sections, 
> not a combined one.
> 
> thanks
> Scott
> 
> <biomodel.maude>
> 
> On Feb 7, 2011, at 2:15 PM, Steven Eker wrote:
> 
>> WIthout the signature, it's hard to know what you are trying to do or what 
>> a 
>> given pattern will match. Always post complete modules.
>> 
>> If you are just manipulating data in a functional way (instead of changing 
>> state with alternative possibilities that might have to be explored using 
>> search or model checking) you are much better off using equations - they 
>> are 
>> _much_ faster and allow common subexpression evaluation (with rules, 
>> common 
>> subexpressions might evaluate differently in each occurrence).
>> 
>> Steven
>> 
>> On Monday 07 February 2011 10:32:03 am Scott Christley wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> I'm writing some rules where I want to add items to a "list" of things.  
>>> In
>>> the case of when the "list" is empty then I want to create the list (kind
>>> of like an initial condition or tail-end of recursion).  Otherwise when
>>> the list is already there then I just want to add to it.  So I'm writing
>>> two rules, one non-conditional rule for when the list is not there, and
>>> another conditional rule for when the list is there.  But I'm worried that
>>> one rule (the non-conditional rule) is too general and always matches.
>>> 
>>> For example I have these two rules, where I match a "foo" in the first
>>> part, then I add "bar" to a list of results for "foo".  The first
>>> non-conditional rule creates the first "result" while the second
>>> conditional rule adds "bar" to the existing list of results.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> rl [test] : test( X foo, answers(Y) )
>>>  => test( X, answers(Y result(foo, bar)) ) .
>>> 
>>> 
>>> crl [test] : test( X foo, answers(Y result(Z, W)) )
>>>   => test( X, answers(Y result(Z, add(W, bar))) )
>>>   if Z = foo .
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> My concern is that it seems that the non-conditional rule will always
>>> match.  Is this true?  Or will a conditional rule which matches always
>>> override a more general rule?
>>> 
>>> What is the correct way to write such rules?  I can think of one change by
>>> changing the non-conditional rule into a conditional rule that checks for
>>> non-existence, something like this:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> crl [test] : test( X foo, answers(Y) )
>>>   => test( X, answers(Y result(foo, bar)) ) .
>>>   if not(contains(foo, Y)) .
>>> 
>>> 
>>> thanks
>>> Scott
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Maude-help mailing list
>>> Maude-help AT cs.uiuc.edu
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/maude-help
>>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Maude-help mailing list
> Maude-help AT cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/maude-help