[racket-dev] [DrDr] R28413 (timeout 4) (unclean 16) (stderr 35) (changes 22)

Sorry, just to clarify, the use of the #:ad-hoc keyword is a
workaround and is not intended to break backwards incompatibility,
right?

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Robby Findler
<robby at eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
> That is a bug in redex-check. You can work around it by passing #:ad-hoc to
> redex-check (this goes back to the old behavior).
>
> Robby
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Stephen Chang <stchang at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Not sure if this is related, but if I have a call to redex-check that
>> is suddenly producing the error:
>>
>>     generate-term: #:i-th does not support "side-condition" patterns
>>
>> What are some possible causes? (still trying to distill to a small
>> example).
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Robby Findler
>> <robby at eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>> > Just to confirm: Redex isn't doing anything wrong, right?
>> >
>> > Redex is now using the in-order enumeration generation in a default
>> > configuration (for a little while before adding some of the old-style
>> > random
>> > generated terms).
>> >
>> > So if you want to see what kinds of things it generates, you can use
>> > generate-term with the #:i-th argument.
>> >
>> > Robby
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Eric Dobson <eric.n.dobson at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Looks like what is actually happening is that redex is actually
>> >> generating reals for this program now.
>> >>
>> >> #lang racket
>> >>
>> >> (require redex/reduction-semantics)
>> >> (define-language tr-arith
>> >>   [n real])
>> >>
>> >> (redex-check tr-arith n #t
>> >>    #:prepare (lambda (x) (displayln x) x))
>> >>
>> >> Before we were only getting small integers.
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Eric Dobson <eric.n.dobson at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > This push has started breaking the random TR tests. I think the issue
>> >> > is that TR assumed that redex wouldn't generate so large numbers that
>> >> > it exceeded the flonum range. Could that have changed in this commit?
>> >> > Or changed so that were generated earlier in random testing? If so
>> >> > the
>> >> > issue is definitely on the TR side, but just want to confirm that the
>> >> > theory is likely.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 4:58 AM,  <drdr at racket-lang.org> wrote:
>> >> >> DrDr has finished building push #28413 after 1.20h.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://drdr.racket-lang.org/28413/
>> >> >>
>> >> >> A file you are responsible for has a condition that may need
>> >> >> inspecting.
>> >> >>   stderr:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://drdr.racket-lang.org/28413/pkgs/typed-racket-pkgs/typed-racket-test/tests/typed-racket/tr-random-testing.rkt
>> >> >>
>> >> >>   unclean:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://drdr.racket-lang.org/28413/pkgs/typed-racket-pkgs/typed-racket-test/tests/typed-racket/tr-random-testing.rkt
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _________________________
>> >   Racket Developers list:
>> >   http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
>> >
>
>