Re: check/0 hook
Michael Hendricks <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.ai.prolog.swi |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAFHuXuZ9eqcvD-tSPNX-wOMj=7ate_ViAjA0xCTSXJbUQU+zGA@mail.gmail.com> |
Patches submitted -- Michael On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 1:53 AM, Jan Wielemaker <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/26/2013 04:25 PM, Michael Hendricks wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Jan Wielemaker <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> I'm in favour. I wouldn't call it a hook. I propose a multifile and >> dynamic >> >> check:checker(Goal, Message) >> >> The execution can use a failure driven loop, possibly using a catch >> with print_message to report errors in the registered checkers without >> breaking the process. >> >> >> That sounds good. I'll follow that design. >> >> Do we want to retain the pass numbers ("PASS 1: ...", etc). With a >> failure driven loop I'd have to use nb_setval/2. I suppose I could use >> findall and a recursive loop instead. Alternatively, we could remove >> the numbers and just have "PASS: ..." I mostly ignore the numbers, so >> perhaps they can be removed. Any preference? >> > > I'd propose to just drop the pass numbers. Simpler and they are > meaningless anyway. > > Cheers --- Jan > -------------- next part -------------- HTML attachment scrubbed and removed