Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
In the formal semantics we have something like this
$F={S_0,S_1,…,S_{m−1}}$ is a finite set of acceptance sets.
where each S_i is a subset of transitions.
I think declaring F as a set is a mistake, because it implicitly implies that all S_i will be different, which is not the case in the format.
I suggest to rewrite this as
$F=(S_0,S_1,…,S_{m−1})$ is a tuple of $m$ acceptance sets.
Do you agree?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Tuple sounds fine to me. It naturally comes with the order and indexing the sets. I can't see any advantage of having a set there.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Or we can say that $F=S_0,S_1,…,S_{m−1}$ is a finite sequence of $m$ acceptance sets. I like it slightly more than tuples of an arbitrary arity/length.
Declare F as a list, not a set. Fixes #48.
cc9c930
Fixes acceptance sets and definition of run. Fixes adl#48 and replaces …
4798685
…adl#49.
7a874fe
No branches or pull requests
adl commentedMay 26, 2015
In the formal semantics we have something like this
where each S_i is a subset of transitions.
I think declaring F as a set is a mistake, because it implicitly implies that all S_i will be different, which is not the case in the format.
I suggest to rewrite this as
Do you agree?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: