Re: No permission to modify static procedure

"The traditional practice with Prolog modules is *NOT* to use a module prefix"
  Ok this explains. Thanks.

 ------------------ Original ------------------
  From:  "Richard A. O'Keefe";<[email protected]>;
 Date:  Mon, Jan 20, 2014 10:26 AM
 To:  "Lumj"<[email protected]>; 
 Cc:  "Jan Wielemaker"<[email protected]>; "Paulo Moura"<[email protected]>; "SWI-Prolog"<[email protected]>; 
 Subject:  Re: [SWIPL] 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.
-------------- next part --------------
HTML attachment scrubbed and removed