Talk:Agent wrapper generation - Revision history

Colin-adams: Dropping arguments

2007-04-28T06:10:20Z

Dropping arguments

Juliant at 22:33, 27 April 2007

2007-04-27T22:33:36Z

Colin-adams at 22:18, 27 April 2007

2007-04-27T22:18:50Z

Juliant at 21:30, 27 April 2007

2007-04-27T21:30:23Z

Juliant at 19:17, 27 April 2007

2007-04-27T19:17:25Z

New page

'''--[[User:Juliant|Juliant]] 21:17, 27 April 2007 (CEST)'''

You can already now use the target as an open argument. If you define your agent as <e>agent {AEROPLANE}.refuel</e> than this agent has the target as first open argument. What you cannot do at the moment is having the target at another position than the first, so an example with <e>agent {A_TYPE}(?2).a_feature (?1)</e> might make more sense.

One problem you have with only caring for a part of the arguments is the conformance rules for generics which are applied to agents as well. If you define your agent as <e>agent notify_button_press (?3)</e> (which is my favorite syntax untill now) then what is the type of this agent? It has to be something like <e>PROCEDURE [ANY, TUPLE [*, *, INTEGER]]</e>, but then it won't conform to the event handler you have given since the argument tuple does not have enough elements. This is a problem with the conformance of tuples which is not correctly applicable to agents.

See [http://www.jot.fm/issues/issue_2004_04/article7 this paper for more information]. The problem with the paper is that they don't reason about open targets which have to be handled differently than open arguments.

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:10, 28 April 2007
Line 17:		Line 17:

	The point is for the compiler to generate a wrapper to intercede between the two types.		The point is for the compiler to generate a wrapper to intercede between the two types.
		+
		+	== Dropping arguments ==
		+
		+	--[[User:Colin-adams\|Colin-adams]] 08:10, 28 April 2007 (CEST)The reason for syntax to drop all arguments is currently that providing no arguments signals an agent that accepts all the open arguments an no other.
		+
		+	I suppose the compiler could also check to see if the specified agent receives zero arguments, and generate a wrapper there too.
		+	And this can be extended to only consider the situation after all closed arguments have been taken into account.

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 Also I don't see the reason why you need a special syntax to drop arguments. If you want an agent which does not get any arguments, you just provide a feature which doesn't take any. As long as you provide a feature which takes a number of arguments, all of them will be open since you cannot pass ''nothing'' in this spot. You can always close arguments if you have a reasonable default value which you can pass.
 The type for <eiffel>agent notify_button (?3)</eiffel> is <eiffel>PROCEDURE [ANY, TUPLE [INTEGER]]</eiffel>.
 The point is for the compiler to generate a wrapper to intercede between the two types.

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:18, 27 April 2007
Line 10:		Line 10:

	Also I don't see the reason why you need a special syntax to drop arguments. If you want an agent which does not get any arguments, you just provide a feature which doesn't take any. As long as you provide a feature which takes a number of arguments, all of them will be open since you cannot pass ''nothing'' in this spot. You can always close arguments if you have a reasonable default value which you can pass.		Also I don't see the reason why you need a special syntax to drop arguments. If you want an agent which does not get any arguments, you just provide a feature which doesn't take any. As long as you provide a feature which takes a number of arguments, all of them will be open since you cannot pass ''nothing'' in this spot. You can always close arguments if you have a reasonable default value which you can pass.
		+
		+	The type for <eiffel>agent notify_button (?3)</eiffel> is <eiffel>PROCEDURE [ANY, TUPLE [INTEGER]]</eiffel>.
		+
		+	The point is for the compiler to generate a wrapper to intercede between the two types.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:30, 27 April 2007
Line 6:		Line 6:

	See [http://www.jot.fm/issues/issue_2004_04/article7 this paper for more information]. The problem with the paper is that they don't reason about open targets which have to be handled differently than open arguments.		See [http://www.jot.fm/issues/issue_2004_04/article7 this paper for more information]. The problem with the paper is that they don't reason about open targets which have to be handled differently than open arguments.
		+
		+	'''--[[User:Juliant\|Juliant]] 23:30, 27 April 2007 (CEST)'''
		+
		+	Also I don't see the reason why you need a special syntax to drop arguments. If you want an agent which does not get any arguments, you just provide a feature which doesn't take any. As long as you provide a feature which takes a number of arguments, all of them will be open since you cannot pass ''nothing'' in this spot. You can always close arguments if you have a reasonable default value which you can pass.