Re: Functional syntax
Kilian Evang <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.ai.prolog.swi |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 04-12-13 13:24, Jan Wielemaker wrote:
> I provisionally like this.
Glad to hear it!
> Note that right now, you can get this to work as expected (using
> is/calc/eval/...):
>
> length(List, math{}.is(1+1)).
Yes, I also thought of that, but this is so verbose as to cancel out the
benefit of writing it functionally rather than with an extra variable
and extra goal. At least for my taste. A compact functional syntax along
the lines of what I sketched, on the other hand, might really change the
way I write Prolog. Some day.
> My first goal is to get V7 stable wrt. the new features and exploit
> these features in the libraries. This includes finding solutions
> for people getting into trouble with some of the new features.
Absolutely, I see that stabilizing the current V7 has priority. Curious
to see what you will decide once that is done. :)