Skip to content
New issue

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

Not clear whether acceptance sets can be specified both on a set and some of its exit arcs #69

Closed
vkhomenko opened this issue Mar 26, 2019 · 3 comments

Comments

@vkhomenko
Copy link

@vkhomenko vkhomenko commented Mar 26, 2019

The documentation says:

The INT* used in acc-sig represent the acceptance sets the state or edge belongs to. Since we use transition-based acceptance, when acc-sig is used on a state to declare membership to some acceptance sets, it is syntactic sugar for the membership of all the outgoing transitions to this set. For instance State: 0 {1 3} would states that all transitions leaving state 0 are in acceptance sets 1 and 3.

It is not clear whether acc-sig can be specified on both the state and some of its exit arcs. There are several possibilities:

  • disallow this (and explicitly tell in the documentation)
  • allow this and then acc-sig on the state is united with those on the arcs; also, one may require the union to be disjoint.
@xblahoud
Copy link
Collaborator

@xblahoud xblahoud commented Mar 27, 2019

This is addressed by the last example among nondeterministic automata where we explicitly allow this and specify this as union of the marks.

Loading

@adl
Copy link
Owner

@adl adl commented Mar 27, 2019

I'm added a not above this in the aforementioned paragraph.

Loading

@adl adl closed this Mar 27, 2019
@strejcek
Copy link
Collaborator

@strejcek strejcek commented Mar 27, 2019

I've just fixed an old typo in the paragraph...

Loading

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
4 participants