[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [henshin-dev] Injective Matching & Multi Nodes
|
Thanks for clarifying this, after playing around a bit more I think I
now understand what's going on ;)
cheers, sebastian
On 10/16/2014 01:31 PM, Christian Krause wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> 2014-10-14 18:47 GMT+02:00 Gabmeyer Sebastian <gabmeyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:gabmeyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>:
>
> Sorry last mail went off too fast... Here the complete one.
>> ...
> So this essentially means that any node of the host graph matched by
> the LHS graph cannot be matched again by a NAC/PAC node, right?
>
>
> Well, it is implicitly matched already by the LHS and, yes, it won't be
> matched again to any other node.
>
>
>
> I see, I think the way I'm using multi nodes would probably qualify
> as abuse ;) since we only use simple rules in our application
> scenario, that is, no units and no control flow, we add multi-nodes
> to rules to match zero or more nodes. Since we do not have a kernel
> rule, only deletion nodes seem to make sense in our context... Is
> there any problem using multi nodes as described here?
>
>
> Using multi-rules for applying a rule to all possible matches is a very
> common use case. Technically, you still have a kernel rule, but it is
> empty. The interpreter actually works in the same way as in the
> non-empty case. It first tries to find a match for the kernel rule and
> then matches the multi-rules as often as possible. The match of the
> kernel-rule in this case is the empty match.
>
> Cheers,
> Christian
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> henshin-dev mailing list
> henshin-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/henshin-dev
>
--
Sebastian Gabmeyer
Business Informatics Group (BIG)
Vienna University of Technology
http://www.big.tuwien.ac.at/staff/sgabmeyer
