Re: Functional syntax

I crafted my own tiny interface, I'll show it since I got a positive review
from an user...

 1 ?- [lifter].

% lifter compiled into lifter 0.01 sec, 13 clauses

true.


2 ?- length(List, ° is 1+1).

List = [_G1367, _G1370].


We can name lifted variables, if are worth reuse


3 ?- length(List, °L is 1+1), length(L2, ° is L+2).

List = [_G1740, _G1743],

L = 2,

L2 = [_G1746, _G1749, _G1752, _G1755].


4 ?- append(length(°, °L is 1+1), length(°, ° is L+2), Longer).

L = 2,

Longer = [_G1897, _G1900, _G1903, _G1906, _G1909, _G1912].

If someone is interested, it's on
github<https://github.com/CapelliC/prolog-snippets>.
I'm willing to correct it, if some bug will be found (of course :).

bye Carlo

2013/12/4 Kilian Evang <[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. :)
> _______________________________________________
> SWI-Prolog mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.iai.uni-bonn.de/mailman/listinfo.cgi/swi-prolog
>
-------------- next part --------------
HTML attachment scrubbed and removed