Re: No permission to modify static procedure

On 20/01/2014, at 2:44 PM, Lumj wrote:
> I have no intention to redefine the built-in predicate, I just happen to pick 'write' as the name for the display predicate for my custom objects, and expect the system to resolve foo:write(foo). If I am not allowed to use the name used by built-in predicate, I have to name it something like 'foo_write'.

You could use some other language.  I've been known to use 'skribu'
(Esperanto for 'write!').  In English, possibilities include
'output', 'describe', 'report', or my big favourite, 'show'.

> Is there any reason for the system not to allow this name-hiding?

The traditional practice with Prolog modules is *NOT* to use a
module prefix.  This means that if your module can define write/1
and export it, it can be *called* as write(foo) in other modules.
That doesn't sound like a good idea.

In fact, for people trying to read Prolog code, it's really
helpful if the names of the ISO predicates are always used for
their ISO semantics; it would be just too confusing if
put_char(X) might delete a file...

If you want to think in terms of "objects", then you should
probably be using LogTalk, where you can do what you want to.