Re: Functional syntax

>>>> ?- length(List, .calc(1 + 1)).

>>  >> List = [_G1821, _G1824].


I wrote: 

>>> Or (1.1).calc() to match other syntax.

Sic.  I meant (1+1).calc().

or in general (Term).predicate(Args)
There are a few variations that might be implemented here.

Also possible is Term.Index.


From: Jan Wielemaker <[email protected]>
>>  >I provisionally like this.  As there are several issues to be
>>  >resolved wrt. function expansion in the first place, I'm not
>>  >in a hurry though.  Note that right now, you can get this to
>>  >work as expected (using is/calc/eval/...):
>>
>> Can you elaborate what sort of issues need be resolved?
>One is still on the radar: how to interact with DSLs that do not
>wish to use this as functional notation.  Also the interaction
>with meta-calls is quite delicate.


The LISP way is to do one of these:
with_functional_expansion(stuff), other_stuff


and any A.B found in stuff gets expanded.  Or


without_functional_expansion(stuff), other_stuff 
any A.B found in other_stuff gets expanded

Note that if expansion is compile-time, and can be 
disabled, it's easy for a programmer to structure 
code so the data elements are not subject to unwanted
rewrites.

As for meta-calls, I think these two points cover most issues:
1) any term rewrite produces a comma-list
2) ./2 is callable