- Apr 15, 2022
-
-
Tomáš Pecka authored
-
- Mar 20, 2022
-
-
Jan Trávníček authored
-
- Mar 06, 2022
-
-
Jan Trávníček authored
-
Jan Trávníček authored
-
Jan Trávníček authored
-
Jan Trávníček authored
-
Jan Trávníček authored
-
- Feb 23, 2022
-
-
Jan Trávníček authored
-
Jan Trávníček authored
-
- Feb 09, 2022
-
-
Jan Trávníček authored
-
Jan Trávníček authored
Closes #205
-
Jan Trávníček authored
Closes #215
-
- Feb 07, 2022
-
-
Jan Trávníček authored
-
Jan Trávníček authored
-
- Feb 05, 2022
-
-
Tomáš Pecka authored
This new easy algorithm checks whether a regexp's language is an infinite language. Also adding an AQL test to compare with the same algorithm on finite automata.
-
- Feb 01, 2022
-
-
Jan Trávníček authored
-
Jan Trávníček authored
-
- Jan 27, 2022
-
-
- Jan 26, 2022
-
-
- Jan 02, 2022
-
-
Jan Trávníček authored
-
Jan Trávníček authored
The implementation so far is able to handle only single nonlinear variable.
-
- Dec 26, 2021
-
-
Jan Trávníček authored
-
- Dec 20, 2021
-
-
Jan Trávníček authored
-
Jan Trávníček authored
-
- Dec 05, 2021
-
-
Tomáš Pecka authored
The algorithm, taken from BI-AAG course @ FIT CTU did not work correctly when first automaton accepts a word of length 1. There are two bugs. First, the set of final states was wrong. This was the easy part to spot. Second, we sometimes miss some transitions. Consider these two automata: DFA a b ><A B - <B - - DFA a b ><C - - The algorithm would result in this: DFA a b ><S B C A B|C - B - - <C - C Which is of course wrong because the first automaton accepts "a + #E" and the second one accepts a language of "b*". However, the result doesn't accept words from neither "a" nor "ab*" which is in language "(a+#E)b*". The problem is that for every transition in the first automaton that leads to a final state we create a new transition to an initial state of the second automaton. This effectively says that "ok, we are done with first automaton, we would accept. Let's continue from the initial state of the second automaton". Also, when we create a new initial state, we *only* copy transitions from both initial states there. But if the word is of length 1 and is to be accepted by the first automaton, we are missing this "transition to second automaton". In our example above, we need to add a transition (S, a) -> C and it's fine.
-
- Dec 03, 2021
-
-
Jan Trávníček authored
-
- Nov 27, 2021
-
-
Jan Trávníček authored
-
- Nov 26, 2021
-
-
Jan Trávníček authored
-
- Nov 23, 2021
-
-
breaking change!
-
Jan Trávníček authored
-
- Nov 21, 2021
-
-
MP algorithm was always resetting the pattern index to 0 whereas it should be reused. This revealed that Spos should also take into account node wildcards otherwise the presumed not-necessary-to-be-parsed part of the pattern does not have to be matching the pattern. Which caused the computation of what does not need to be matched to underflow.
-
- Nov 20, 2021
-
-
Tomáš Pecka authored
-
- Oct 15, 2021
-
-
Jan Trávníček authored
-
- Jul 20, 2021
-
-
Jan Trávníček authored
-
- May 28, 2021
-
-
- Apr 03, 2021
-
-
Jan Trávníček authored
-
- Mar 25, 2021
-
-
Jan Trávníček authored
-
Jan Trávníček authored
-
Jan Trávníček authored
-