On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 1:16 PM, miaubiz
I am trying to generate a square wave. Here's the code:
square <- bool "square" False
period 2 $ atom "square high" $ phase 0 $ do square <== true assert "square is low" $ not_ $ value square
period 2 $ atom "square low" $ phase 1 $ do square <== false assert "square is high" $ value square
The tests fail every cycle because after each rule one of them is wrong.
If you are using the latest version of Atom, asserts are checked between the execution of every rule. The way you've coded it, it may appear as if the assertions are checked along with the associated rules, but this is not the case. And not only are the assertions not checked with the rules, they don't follow the period or phase constraints either. So what you have is essentially 2 assertions that are being checked at every time instance and between every atom state update.
What would be the right way to formulate this code? Use cond on the rules?
period 2 $ atom "square high" $ phase 0 $ do cond $ not_ $ value square square <== true cover "lowSquare" true assert "square is low" $ not_ $ value square
period 2 $ atom "square low" $ phase 1 $ do cond $ value square square <== false cover "highSquare" true assert "square is high" $ value square
Yes, guard conditions would help. Guards are hierarchical; they apply to all the sub Atom rules and assertions. As such ... cond $ not_ $ value square assert "squareIsLow" $ not_ $ value square .. is a redundant because the guard condition is the same as the assertion. The guard will only allow the assertion to be checked if 'square' is false, and if it does, the assertion is guaranteed to pass. An easier way to write a square wave is this... square <- bool "square" False period 2 $ atom "toggle" $ do square <== not_ (value square)
as an aside, in Unit.hs: covered = [ words line !! 1 | line <- lines log, isPrefixOf "covered:" line ]
because covered is the second word of the line from the log, the name of cover must be a single word. assertions and atoms can contain spaces as far as I can tell.
No, they really shouldn't. I've been meaning to add some checks to enforce some naming rules, but haven't gotten around to it. I hope this helps. -Tom
br, miau -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/ANN%3A-atom-0.1.3-tp26624813p27198213.html Sent from the Haskell - Haskell-Cafe mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe