Removed a TODO comment because I had actually already done the thing in question
A bit more tidying up of todos which were done
Turned one expected failure into a non-expected failure. Test now failing for process aliases. I believe it is being parsed as a constant definition. I will solve this using different case identifiers for processes and constants
Now defined identifiers in terms of lower and upper identifiers. The next step is to generalise the production of the expression grammar such that PEPA models can allow only lower case identifiers in expressions but Bio-PEPA models allow both.
Now generalised the construction of an expression grammar by the grammar for an identifier. In particular we now have two
separate kinds of constant definitions for use with PEPA and Bio-PEPA. This now means that our alias-using PEPA test model is correctly parsed, but we still fail the test because it does not evaluate correctly.
Right, now have the TestSimpleAlias test working, but not the TestChoiceAlias. I know there are some frailaties in the code as well. In addition we should now be using visitors for the process AST as this is becomming a little silly that each of them have quite a few operations and it would be nice to have those operations defined by themselves, but that should be quite a simple refactor
So TestChoiceAlias was actually failing because I had incorrectly written down the expected results, it is now working correctly, I still think we are not doing enough thorough testing, but we are getting there, very nice to have no expected failiures for the first time.
Implemented PEPA process node visitors, and used them for getting the immediate aliases. I'm still not entirely sure about this, particularly the actual use is a little questionable since it requires three lines, but still