todo.tex

\section{TODO}
\com{TODO}
\begin{itemize}
% \item clingo
%   \begin{itemize}
%   \item Python/Lua
%   \item etc
%   \end{itemize}
% \item domains heuristic
%   \begin{itemize}
%   \item options
%   \item heuristic
%   \end{itemize}
% \item meta-programming
% \item CSP \$
% \item abstract for laymen
% \item more prominent mention of AG (large subset of syntex and semantics precisely described)
% \item remark and example environment
% \item use comparison predicates in aggregates rather than identical lower and upper bounds
\item restructure index (lowercase, structure see lp)
%%% \item section disjunctive modeling (do book)
% \item quoting of expressions/symbols (double quotes, punctuation)
\item homogeneous style for schematics in language section
%\item the language section uses very often: ``gringo and the grounding component of clingo''
% \item Vladimir's comments
% \begin{itemize}
%  \item 
%   The symbols \code{\#sup} and \code{\#inf} are new to me, is this a recent addition to the
%   language?  Is it really true that \code{\#sup>f(\#sup)}, but \code{\#inf<f(\#inf)}?
%   The explanation of these symbols at the bottom of page 13 is cryptic, I’m
%   afraid, unless you say there that a total order on variable-free terms is
%   going to be inroduced later.
%   \comment{RK: I agree that it is not obvious to the reader why the two symbols are introduced their.
%     But we have a forward reference to the aggregate section where their use is described.}
%  \item
%   The discussion of terms in Sec. 3.1.1 gives the impression that Fig. 2 is a
%   complete description of the syntax of terms.  It would be good to say here
%   that the definition of a term will be extended later, when arithmetic
%   operations and intervals are introduced.  In fact, Fig. 2 defines something
%   close to what we call “precomputed” terms in the AG paper.  It may be
%   worthwhile to include this (or similar) name for the class of terms covered
%   by Fig. 2, for the following reason.  The total order that you talk about
%   in Sec. 3.1.7 is not defined actually on all variable-free terms; it is
%   defined on *precomputed* variable free terms.  Once we decided whether f(a)
%   is greater than g(2), we are committed to the same choice regarding f(a)
%   and g(1+1), and regarding g(1..1), right?
%   \comment{RK: I disscussed this with Martin. 
%       When variable-free terms are introduced, they contain neither arithmetics, pools, or intervals.
%       The order among variables is introduced along with comparison literals, 
%       where we mention that terms are compared after evaluating arithmetic functions.
%       Our conclusion was to not introduce auxiliary notions to keep the guide simple.}
%  % \item
%  %  Will the reader understand “cannot span positive cycles” and “induces no
%  %  positive cycle” in Sec. 3.1.4?  Unfortunately, I don't know what to
%  %  suggest.
%   \end{itemize}
% \item Christoph's comments
%   \begin{itemize}
%   \item 
%     I have one comment regarding the future work section where it says that it
%     is considered to add "support for arbitrary positive loops". Since the
%     second half of the sentence talks about redefining atoms in incremental
%     programs, I was wondering if these two features are meant to be used
%     together, i.e., redefining atoms in a cyclic fashion (which would
%     contradict the outcome of our discussion after Cristina's defense). If not,
%     then it should be clarified which kind of positive loops are meant here
%     since most positive loops are already supported (maybe over aggregates?).
%   \item 
%     Another question concerns Section 3.1.11 (conditional literals), where I
%     was wondering how the rule would be instantiated if person(jane) and
%     person(john) were no fact but derivable atoms. Then meet would only depend
%     on the available atoms whose corresponding person atoms are currently true.
%     Maybe one should give another example which demonstrates this. (My idea
%     would be to use default-negation to derive an intermediate atom if there is
%     a person who is not available, and then use another default-negation to
%     check if this atom is not true.).
% \end{itemize}
\end{itemize}

%%% Local Variables: 
%%% mode: latex
%%% TeX-master: "guide"
%%% End: