Redundancy detection

View: New views
3 Messages — Rating Filter:   Alert me  

Redundancy detection

by Emily M. Bender :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

Hi folks,

Is it possible to turn off the functionality that
discovers where exactly the redundancy is after
an error message like "Redundancy involving IMP-AUX"
is printed?  With my current grammar at least, there
seems to be a lot of gargbage collecting involved
in figuring out what exactly the redundancy is; I
can usually spot it way faster than the machine can.

Emily

Re: Redundancy detection

by Ann Copestake :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message


ebender@... said:
> Is it possible to turn off the functionality that discovers where exactly the
> redundancy is after an error message like "Redundancy involving IMP-AUX" is
> printed?  With my current grammar at least, there seems to be a lot of
> gargbage collecting involved  in figuring out what exactly the redundancy is;
> I can usually spot it way faster than the machine can.

hmm - I just looked at the code that does that - the inefficiency is clear.  
If it's annoying you, the easiest thing to do would just be to put in a patch
e.g., in your user-fns file that redefines the function e.g.,

(defun find-all-redundancies nil
  (format t "Redundancy somewhere but I'm not going to tell you where!"))

I don't really want to put in a global variable that switches the check off
because it's just one more thing to (not) document and I believe that
find-all-redundancies can be rewritten.  I will have a look at it sometime.

Ann



Re: Redundancy detection

by Emily M. Bender :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

Much better, thanks :)  And it does still give me the "redundancy
involving <TYPE>" message, which is all I really need.

Emily

On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 04:18:22PM +0000, Ann Copestake wrote:

>
> ebender@... said:
> > Is it possible to turn off the functionality that discovers where exactly the
> > redundancy is after an error message like "Redundancy involving IMP-AUX" is
> > printed?  With my current grammar at least, there seems to be a lot of
> > gargbage collecting involved  in figuring out what exactly the redundancy is;
> > I can usually spot it way faster than the machine can.
>
> hmm - I just looked at the code that does that - the inefficiency is clear.  
> If it's annoying you, the easiest thing to do would just be to put in a patch
> e.g., in your user-fns file that redefines the function e.g.,
>
> (defun find-all-redundancies nil
>   (format t "Redundancy somewhere but I'm not going to tell you where!"))
>
> I don't really want to put in a global variable that switches the check off
> because it's just one more thing to (not) document and I believe that
> find-all-redundancies can be rewritten.  I will have a look at it sometime.
>
> Ann
>
>