[m-rev.] for review: a better approximation to rational debugging

[Ian MacLarty]

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Mark Brown wrote:

> On 06-Jul-2005, Ian MacLarty <maclarty at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> > +		Node = exit(_, CallId, _, _, _, _, _)
> > +	->
> > +			%
> > +			% Only include an exit node as a missing answer child
> > +			% if it produces output.  If the exit event doesn't
> > +			% produce output then the only way the call could have
> > +			% behaved differently is by failing, which won't change
> > +			% the FAIL, NEGS or ELSE anchoring the end of the
> > +			% current stratum.
>
> ...<thinks>...
>
> Ok, that's right.  But I would add "since the rest of the goal failed anyway"
> to the end of that last sentence.
>

Done.

> > -			% is anything other than failed.
> > +			% This handles the following cases: redo, switch,
> > +			% first_disj, later_disj, then and neg_succ.  Also
> > +			% handles cond when the status is anything other than
> > +			% failed.  We skip neg_succ nodes since they cannot
> > +			% bind anything, so could not be the cause of the
> > +			% FAIL, NEGS or ELSE anchoring the end of the
> > +			% current stratum.
>
> Also add that here, or else change it to "We skip neg_succ nodes for the
> same reason that we skip exit nodes where there are no outputs (see above)"
> or something like that.
>

Followed your second suggestion.

> > +:- pred calls_arguments_are_all_ground(S::in, R::in) is semidet
> > +	<= annotated_trace(S, R).
> > +
> > +calls_arguments_are_all_ground(Store, CallId) :-
> > +	call_node_from_id(Store, CallId, Call),
> > +	Args = Call ^ call_atom_args,
> > +	%
> > +	% XXX The following won't work for partially instantiated arguments.
> > +	%
> > +	all [Arg] (
> > +		(
> > +			list.member(Arg, Args),
> > +		  	Arg = arg_info(yes, _, _)
> > +		)
>
> Restricting the test to programmer visible arguments is unnecessary, and
> possibly harmful (I can't think of any examples that would make any
> difference at the moment, but if there ever were any cases where it would
> make a difference in future then the above test would be wrong).
>

Agreed.  I've changed it to check all arguments.

Thanks for that,

Ian.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-reviews mailing list
post:  mercury-reviews at cs.mu.oz.au
administrative address: owner-mercury-reviews at cs.mu.oz.au
unsubscribe: Address: mercury-reviews-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: unsubscribe
subscribe:   Address: mercury-reviews-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: subscribe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------