Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.prolog > #14007

Re: Not being a Haskell programmer is trendy!

Show all headers | View raw

In short moment I though I could speed up
call/1, by using SWI-Prolog $meta_call/1 semantics,
which differs from call/1 semantis:

/* SWI-Prolog 9.3.0 */
?- call((Y=!,(X=1;X=2),Y,X=2)).
Y = !,
X = 2.

?- '$meta_call'((Y=!,(X=1;X=2),Y,X=2)).
false.

/* SWI-Prolog 9.3.0 */
?- call(((X=1;X=2),1,X=2)).
ERROR: Type error: `callable' expected, found
`(_168=1;_168=2),1,_168=2' (a compound)

?- '$meta_call'(((X=1;X=2),1,X=2)).
ERROR: Type error: `callable' expected, found `1' (an integer)

One can spare one pass, since body conversion is
ommited. Would make call/1 faster. Also intersting
find, that I wasn't aware of, namely there is

correspondence between:

SWI-Prolog                  Dogelog Player
prolog_current_choice/1     '$MARK'
prolog_cut_to/1             '$CUT'

but the body conversion pass in Dogelog Player, does
optimize away unnecessary '$MARK' and $CUT', so maybe
the this extra pass isn't useless overhead?

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Lets not forget GNU Prolog. It lacks a little bit
> behind SWI-Prolog for the first test case:
> 
> ?- p(X), (between(1,1000000,_),X,fail; true).
> X = (A is 1+2,_ is A+3)
> (453 ms) yes
> 
> ?- (between(1,1000000,_),p(X),X,fail; true).
> (578 ms) yes
> 
> Also this kind of testing might be a little bit
> to generous, by ommiting the time/1 call. 

Back to comp.lang.prolog | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Not being a Haskell programmer is trendy! Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-02-02 20:46 +0100
  Re: Not being a Haskell programmer is trendy! Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-02-02 21:00 +0100
    Re: Not being a Haskell programmer is trendy! Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-02 12:50 -0800
      Re: Not being a Haskell programmer is trendy! Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 03:25 -0800
    Re: Not being a Haskell programmer is trendy! Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-11 14:34 -0800
      Re: Not being a Haskell programmer is trendy! Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-11 14:39 -0800
        Re: Not being a Haskell programmer is trendy! Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-14 06:45 -0800
          Re: Not being a Haskell programmer is trendy! Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-14 06:53 -0800
  Re: Not being a Haskell programmer is trendy! Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-14 13:29 -0800
    Re: Not being a Haskell programmer is trendy! Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-14 13:33 -0800
  Re: Not being a Haskell programmer is trendy! Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-02-21 01:27 +0100
    Re: Not being a Haskell programmer is trendy! Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-02-21 01:28 +0100
      Re: Not being a Haskell programmer is trendy! Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-02-21 01:30 +0100
        Re: Not being a Haskell programmer is trendy! Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-21 03:43 -0800
  Re: Not being a Haskell programmer is trendy! Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-03-01 17:45 +0100
    Re: Not being a Haskell programmer is trendy! Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-03-01 17:47 +0100
      Re: Not being a Haskell programmer is trendy! Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-03-01 17:57 +0100
        Re: Not being a Haskell programmer is trendy! Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-03-01 18:06 +0100
          Re: Not being a Haskell programmer is trendy! Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-03-01 18:08 +0100
            Re: Not being a Haskell programmer is trendy! Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-03-01 19:45 +0100
              Re: Not being a Haskell programmer is trendy! Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-03-01 21:33 +0100
  Re: Not being a Haskell programmer is trendy! Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-03-06 01:56 +0100

csiph-web