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

Yes that fixed it. Thanks!

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Robby Findler
<robby at eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
> I've now pushed what should be a fix for the bug. It is a fix for this small
> example, and so hopefully a fix for your later model too.
>
> #lang racket
> (require redex/reduction-semantics)
>
> (define-language L
>   (cap-x (side-condition
>           variable_1
>           (regexp-match #rx"^[A-Z]" (symbol->string (term variable_1))))))
>
> (redex-check
>  L
>  cap-x
>  #t
>  #:attempts 10)
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Stephen Chang <stchang at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>