[Push] Reserved names and active features

[Rud Merriam]

My interpretation has been that a restricted instruction set was applicable
in two situation: when generating random code and when performing GP
generation of code. These are really the same basic situation since in both
cases, in my interpretation, there is no way to generate instructions other
than from the restricted set. 

Only when actually writing code for execution might you encounter an unknown
instruction, i.e. you setup a restriction and then violated it with hand
written code. 

In short, I am thinking there isn't an issue here. 

 
 - 73 - 
Rud Merriam K5RUD 
http://mysticlakesoftware.com/


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee Spector [mailto:lspector at hampshire.edu] 
> Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 4:39 PM
> To: PerPlex Ed
> Cc: push at lists.hampshire.edu
> Subject: Re: [Push] Reserved names and active features
> 
> 
> 
> In the Common Lisp implementation of Push3 the concept of 
> "active instruction" is basically what you say here: symbols 
> that name implemented instructions are recognized as 
> instructions and executed whether or not they are "active," 
> and the active status only affects random code generation and 
> the behavior of the code.instructions instruction. I'm not 
> sure this is the best way to do things. In schush and clojush 
> I haven't implemented names so the issue doesn't arise -- all 
> symbols are assumed to name instructions and if you try to 
> execute one that doesn't then something breaks.
> 
>  -Lee
> 
> 
> On Jun 26, 2010, at 7:08 PM, PerPlex Ed wrote:
> 
> > Hello.
> > 
> > I'm trying to semplify my implementation but I'd like to be 
> sure I'm 
> > doing the right thing.
> > 
> > Previously the parser considered reserved names all names of active 
> > instructions. This meant that the parser had to know the 
> configuration 
> > in advance. This is harder or probably impossible to implement 
> > correctly when you use multiple related concurrent interpreters.  I 
> > re-read the language description and I guess I understood it wrong.
> > 
> > A Push implementation should always accept all instructions 
> from the 
> > source code, so all names corresponding to instructions 
> included in a 
> > given implementation are reserved. The concept of "active 
> instruction" 
> > is used only when generating random code.
> > 
> > Is this right?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > PerPlexEd
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Push mailing list
> > Push at lists.hampshire.edu 
> > https://lists.hampshire.edu/mailman/listinfo/push
> 
> --
> Lee Spector, Professor of Computer Science
> School of Cognitive Science, Hampshire College
> 893 West Street, Amherst, MA 01002-3359
> lspector at hampshire.edu, http://hampshire.edu/lspector/
> Phone: 413-559-5352, Fax: 413-559-5438
> 
> Check out Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines: 
> http://www.springer.com/10710 - http://gpemjournal.blogspot.com/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Push mailing list
> Push at lists.hampshire.edu 
> https://lists.hampshire.edu/mailman/listinfo/push
>