Re: "dict"ionary typing?

On 28-11-13 12:10, Jan Wielemaker wrote:
> 
> No. For two reasons. First of all, functional notation is intended to
> pass arguments to other predicates. Of course, you can use this with
> =/2, but that is certainly not intended to be the prime target. Second,
> overloading is/2 will hinder type reasoning and efficiency (is/2 is
> generally compiled into VM codes).
> 
>> I realize the functional notation could not be used directly in goal
>> arguments then. But so what? That's Prolog. IMHO a consistent syntax is
>> well worth the slight added verbosity.
> 
> Before dicts, I was mostly using library(option), library(record), or
> library(assoc) to do the job. I've got lots of code using these. I
> consider it far too verbose though, and I'm certainly not alone here.
> Just look at all the functional extensions for Prolog floating on the
> web. Getting the . available as an operator is the one and only
> opportunity to do something about this.

Okay, it does sound handy. But why stop at dicts? Can we also get a ./1
which also "evaluates expressions in place" without a dict to call it
"on"? The functional syntax so far provides "method calls", why not also
"function calls"? For example:

calc(Expr) := Result :-
  Result is Expr.

?- length(List, .calc(1 + 1)).
List = [_G1821, _G1824].

Kilian