[developers] Sweaglesw ERG binaries don't include SEM-I?

[Woodley Packard]

Those warnings perhaps merit some investigation, but I don't think they are fatal are they?  Did you try the resulting grammar to no avail?

I was not sure ACE would be happy with the include statement, but it sounds as though that is not the issue, so then I would expect behavior similar to what Stephan cites.

Woodley



On Mar 14, 2017, at 5:29 PM, Francis Bond <bond at ieee.org> wrote:

>> the above SEM-I extension should work equivalently in ACE, i
>> expect; could someone easily confirm that?
> 
> Thank you very much for investigating this fix. 
> 
> We confirmed that this does not work :-).   ACE seems to not like the hierarchy being redefined (if I am interpreting the error messages correctly).   
> type: `def_explicit_q' already declared, go away!
> type: `def_implicit_q' already declared, go away!
> type: `udef_q' already declared, go away!
> type: `_the_q' already declared, go away!
> type: `_a_q' already declared, go away!
> 
> Note that even without jaen.smi we get some similar error messages when we compile the ERG in the logon tree (rev 25417).
> 
> type: `compound' already declared, go away!
> type: `existential_q' already declared, go away!
> type: `of_p' already declared, go away!
> type: `temp_loc_sp' already declared, go away!
> type: `universal_q' already declared, go away!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.delph-in.net/archives/developers/attachments/20170314/f395440d/attachment.html>