Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.prolog > #12554 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-01-28 07:41 -0800 |
| Last post | 2025-08-01 03:01 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 200 — 6 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.prolog
50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-28 07:41 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-28 07:47 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-28 07:49 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-28 07:59 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-28 08:07 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-28 08:10 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-28 08:15 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-28 08:33 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-28 08:35 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-28 08:52 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-02-02 03:46 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-02-04 03:18 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-02-08 06:04 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2022-02-08 15:06 +0100
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-02-08 13:23 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-02-08 13:35 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-02-08 13:42 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-02-08 13:48 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-02-08 16:17 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-02-08 16:34 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-04 01:01 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-04 01:03 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-04 13:10 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-05 15:32 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-16 17:30 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-17 05:10 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-17 13:39 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-17 13:53 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-23 13:57 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 05:32 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 11:47 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 14:49 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2022-04-29 13:27 +0200
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2022-04-29 13:37 +0200
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 08:38 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 08:45 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 11:35 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 00:21 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 00:52 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 00:58 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 01:23 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 03:04 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 03:08 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 03:19 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 03:56 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 04:07 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2022-01-29 15:56 +0100
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2022-01-29 16:05 +0100
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2022-01-29 16:56 +0100
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-31 10:37 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-31 10:45 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 12:03 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 02:44 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 02:49 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 03:11 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 05:54 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-25 02:39 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-25 02:41 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 00:45 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 01:03 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 01:28 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 01:28 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 01:40 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Markus Triska <triska@logic.at> - 2022-07-12 19:25 +0200
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 14:50 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 15:01 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 15:16 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 16:02 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 16:22 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 16:32 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-13 07:08 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-04 17:58 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-04 18:01 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-05 01:16 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-05 01:19 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-05 04:07 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-05 04:25 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-05 07:56 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-05 07:56 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-05 08:14 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-06 12:45 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-06 12:47 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-07 05:24 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-07 05:26 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-07 05:32 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-07 06:50 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-08 15:07 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-08 15:16 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-09 03:23 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-09 12:27 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-09 12:33 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-13 04:13 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-13 04:41 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-13 05:19 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-13 07:20 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-13 07:30 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-13 07:46 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-18 07:16 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-18 07:17 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-18 15:13 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-28 15:04 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-21 10:42 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-22 06:13 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-22 06:23 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-22 06:41 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-23 07:44 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-25 07:10 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-25 07:11 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-25 08:55 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-25 08:56 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Markus Triska <triska@logic.at> - 2023-08-31 21:32 +0200
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-09-01 12:02 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-04-09 00:15 +0200
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-04-09 00:20 +0200
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2023-05-20 14:09 +0200
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-20 05:46 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-20 05:48 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-20 06:16 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-27 04:51 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-01 14:10 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-01 14:11 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-01 14:17 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-03 05:20 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-03 09:10 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-02 00:44 -0700
PIPs from the Basilisk Chamber (Was: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-29 17:22 +0200
Prolog Pearls I: Barklund and Millroth (Was: PIPs from the Basilisk Chamber) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-08 15:07 +0100
Prolog Pearls II: Barklund and Millroth (Was: PIPs from the Basilisk Chamber) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-08 15:29 +0100
change_arg/3 = nb_linkarg/3 ? (Was: PIPs from the Basilisk Chamber) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-08 18:37 +0100
Re: change_arg/3 = nb_linkarg/3 ? (Was: PIPs from the Basilisk Chamber) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-08 18:39 +0100
Re: PIPs from the Basilisk Chamber (Was: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-09 15:47 +0100
Re: PIPs from the Basilisk Chamber (Was: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-09 15:48 +0100
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2022-09-25 21:19 +0200
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2022-09-25 21:21 +0200
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-27 10:11 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2022-09-27 19:13 +0200
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-28 03:33 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-28 03:34 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-28 03:37 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-28 03:56 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-28 05:01 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-28 06:44 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-12-18 16:21 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-12-18 16:22 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-12-25 16:00 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-12-30 21:53 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-12-30 22:03 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-12-30 22:29 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-01-02 10:51 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-01-03 21:17 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-01-03 21:36 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-01-03 21:50 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-01-07 07:35 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-01-14 07:53 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-01-22 08:54 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-01-22 10:02 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-01-22 15:37 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-01-29 07:19 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-01-29 07:20 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-01-29 07:32 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-01-29 07:55 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-01-30 07:06 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-02-06 00:49 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-02-06 00:53 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-02-20 06:23 -0800
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-02-20 06:31 -0800
How working with GitHub feels (Was: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-03-13 14:45 +0100
Re: How working with GitHub feels (Was: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-03-13 15:05 +0100
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-03-12 09:12 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-03-12 09:14 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-03-14 17:57 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2023-03-15 02:01 +0100
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2023-03-15 02:09 +0100
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-03-28 06:07 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-03-28 06:30 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-03-28 10:04 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-03-28 10:05 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-04-02 15:10 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-25 08:48 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-25 08:53 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-25 09:02 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 04:57 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 05:10 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2023-07-29 23:16 +0200
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-30 05:06 -0700
Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 01:09 -0700
How I got rid of term_variables/3 (Was: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-10 12:37 +0100
Re: How I got rid of term_variables/3 (Was: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-10 12:40 +0100
Re: How I got rid of term_variables/3 (Was: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-10 12:42 +0100
How Prolog became an education nightmare (Was: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-12 16:30 +0100
Re: How Prolog became an education nightmare (Was: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-12 16:32 +0100
Re: How Prolog became an education nightmare (Was: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-14 05:14 +0100
Re: How Prolog became an education nightmare (Was: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-14 05:24 +0100
Re: How Prolog became an education nightmare (Was: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense) Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2024-11-14 21:21 +0100
Re: How Prolog became an education nightmare (Was: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-14 21:58 +0100
Re: How Prolog became an education nightmare (Was: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-14 22:10 +0100
Re: How Prolog became an education nightmare (Was: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense) Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2024-11-15 15:42 +0100
Mode yfy to the rescue (Was: How Prolog became an education nightmare) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-14 22:30 +0100
Cyclic term predicates suffer from ambiguity (Was: How Prolog became an education nightmare) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-01 02:47 +0200
An ISO term_variables/2 for Cyclic Terms (Was: Cyclic term predicates suffer from ambiguity) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-01 03:01 +0200
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-12 01:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8c4dec30-95d4-4673-ae6c-4ef5b2fecd83n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13043 |
Here is a suggestion to stop this madness: SWI-Prolog has an iso marker, which is seen in its documentation. Scryer Prolog seems to have two kinds of users. a) Ordinary Prolog users, and b) Users that project some more Declarative Language into Scryer Prolog, although Scryer Prolog is based on WAM which is not designed for that. Maybe introduce an impure marker so that we can identify the subset of this upcoming more Declarative Language. This could be more helpful than distracting GitHub issues that adresse the ordinary needs of Prolog programmers by posting trivialities that anyway any Prologer knows. Here is my suggestion, predicates could be marked as follows: ','/2: no marker (\+)/1: impure marker nonvar/1: impure marker Etc... One could then generate an index with the pure predicates that do not have the impure marker. Is there already a booklet about this new extra ordinary language somewhere? It would be interesting to see what language results by this index. Is it possible to bootstrap a Prolog system with this language? Does it contain some novel declarative predicates?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-12 01:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <66835fe9-ef67-4fff-b7d9-502e6f075313n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13044 |
Also the idea that Scryer Prolog would not support the needs of ordinary Prolog programmers and is kind of extra ordinary language runs counter to its own slogan. It says the first line of the GitHub readme: Scryer Prolog Scryer Prolog aims to become to ISO Prolog what GHC is to Haskell: https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog So it subscribes to ISO Prolog which is anyway dual use, impure and pure. I do not find that the ISO core standard would only promote pure Prolog. Scryer Prolog might be a test bed for some new upcoming declarative programming language. But then the slogan has probably to be changed if this test bed gets hijacked into an exclusive discriminating venture. If the marking doesn't work, maybe a side project with new Prolog system XXX could be interesting. Where effectively the impure predicates are blocked. This could be an interesting idea, so there would be also download of XXX, which is pure, and end-users would have no way to change that, kind of relaunch of the Gödel language idea: The Gödel Programming Language (Logic Programming) von Patricia Hill (Author), John W. Lloyd (Author) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0262082292 which had a similar aim. Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2022 um 10:28:22 UTC+2: > Here is a suggestion to stop this madness: > > > SWI-Prolog has an iso marker, which is seen in its > documentation. Scryer Prolog seems to have two > kinds of users. a) Ordinary Prolog users, and b) > > Users that project some more Declarative Language into > Scryer Prolog, although Scryer Prolog is based on > WAM which is not designed for that. Maybe introduce > > an impure marker so that we can identify the subset > of this upcoming more Declarative Language. This > could be more helpful than distracting GitHub issues > > that adresse the ordinary needs of Prolog programmers > by posting trivialities that anyway any Prologer knows. Here > is my suggestion, predicates could be marked as follows: > > ','/2: no marker > (\+)/1: impure marker > nonvar/1: impure marker > Etc... > > One could then generate an index with the pure predicates > that do not have the impure marker. Is there already a booklet > about this new extra ordinary language somewhere? > > It would be interesting to see what language results by this index. > Is it possible to bootstrap a Prolog system with this language? > Does it contain some novel declarative predicates?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-12 01:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b853f7b6-e661-4fea-a3ce-1b95a80762a3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13045 |
Even in 2018 People ask: I want to start programming with Gödel language Kurt Gödel, LQ Newbie - 02-24-2018, 09:41 AM "I don’t know anything about computer programming. So here I need help please explain to me how computers work. I found this language called gödel, but is this the language i can create a game with? And I do want to know where can I go to learn programming." https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/programming-9/i-want-to-start-programming-with-g%F6del-language-4175624376/ Call the Scryer derived language Gödel II, how about that? Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2022 um 10:29:00 UTC+2: > Also the idea that Scryer Prolog would not support the > needs of ordinary Prolog programmers and is kind of > extra ordinary language runs counter to its own slogan. > > It says the first line of the GitHub readme: > > Scryer Prolog > Scryer Prolog aims to become to ISO Prolog what GHC is to Haskell: > https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog > > So it subscribes to ISO Prolog which is anyway dual use, > impure and pure. I do not find that the ISO core standard > would only promote pure Prolog. > > Scryer Prolog might be a test bed for some new upcoming > declarative programming language. But then the slogan has > probably to be changed if this test bed gets hijacked into > > an exclusive discriminating venture. If the marking doesn't > work, maybe a side project with new Prolog system > XXX could be interesting. Where effectively the > > impure predicates are blocked. This could be an interesting > idea, so there would be also download of XXX, which > is pure, and end-users would have no way to change that, > > kind of relaunch of the Gödel language idea: > > The Gödel Programming Language (Logic Programming) > von Patricia Hill (Author), John W. Lloyd (Author) > https://www.amazon.com/dp/0262082292 > > which had a similar aim. > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2022 um 10:28:22 UTC+2: > > Here is a suggestion to stop this madness: > > > > > > SWI-Prolog has an iso marker, which is seen in its > > documentation. Scryer Prolog seems to have two > > kinds of users. a) Ordinary Prolog users, and b) > > > > Users that project some more Declarative Language into > > Scryer Prolog, although Scryer Prolog is based on > > WAM which is not designed for that. Maybe introduce > > > > an impure marker so that we can identify the subset > > of this upcoming more Declarative Language. This > > could be more helpful than distracting GitHub issues > > > > that adresse the ordinary needs of Prolog programmers > > by posting trivialities that anyway any Prologer knows. Here > > is my suggestion, predicates could be marked as follows: > > > > ','/2: no marker > > (\+)/1: impure marker > > nonvar/1: impure marker > > Etc... > > > > One could then generate an index with the pure predicates > > that do not have the impure marker. Is there already a booklet > > about this new extra ordinary language somewhere? > > > > It would be interesting to see what language results by this index. > > Is it possible to bootstrap a Prolog system with this language? > > Does it contain some novel declarative predicates?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Markus Triska <triska@logic.at> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-12 19:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <m2sfn6kzuc.fsf@logic.at> |
| In reply to | #13043 |
Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> writes: > Which had these people behind it, potential users of it: However, not everyone in this list supports everything in the document. And the document is from 14 years ago: Back then, important constructs such as if_/3, tfilter/3 etc. were not even found, and the quest for better constructs was quite stalled. We can do better today than many of us thought possible in 2008, or even in 2016: For example, just in these last 6 years, we got 4 new Prolog systems (Scryer, Trealla, Tau and ichiban/prolog) where double_quotes is set to chars by default. Who thought that this was possible in 2008? I think even in 2012 or even later, implementors advocated for JavaScript-style "strings" in Prolog and even added them to their systems, until a new representation pioneered by Scryer Prolog made chars viable in newer systems. forall/2 probably likewise seemed necessary in 2008, but does it still seem so today? A better, not yet found construct, could likewise make it obsolete, just like JavaScript-style strings have now become obsolete. > Make a GitHub search, you find many places where it is used > by some Prolog programmer. Its kind of staple food. You will find a lot on GitHub, a lot of Java and C code too. It could make for an interesting analysis, however I find decisions based on such statistics subject to certain doubts: For example, is a construct that violates elementary logical properties good because it appears in a lot of programs? Or does this rather show that many programs could be improved by removing this construct entirely from the language? All the best, Markus -- comp.lang.prolog FAQ: http://www.logic.at/prolog/faq/ The Power of Prolog: https://www.metalevel.at/prolog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-12 14:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <781b5836-4c51-4a7e-a074-85fa4ab490fbn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13047 |
Well the error is always the programmer, in this case the programmer doesnt know that in Prolog bound variables have to be „ purified“ i.e. given different names. For example spinning your nonsense further far ahead, you could also demand to ban findall from Prolog, because: ?- findall(X, member(X, [1,4,2], L). L = [1, 4, 2] X is not instantiated in the answer, so by monotonicity, we should be able to instantiate it, but it goes wrong: ?- X = 3, findall(X, member(X, [1,4,2], L). fail Separating away variable names is bread and butter in theorem proving. I dont think double_quotes chars value is a contribution here, neither if_ etc. I dont find any proposal for an improvement either in the new Prolog systems like Trealla, Scryer, etc.. I only find turds on GitHub all over the place forbid this forbid that despite there is not a single outcry by other Prolog programmers that variable purification is not a body convesion step in ISO standard Prolog. Write please an amendmend to the ISO standard or define a new language with automatic variable separation and then we can talk again. P.S.: Lambda Prolog can do it. But you would write findall invocation slightly differently. Markus Triska schrieb am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2022 um 19:21:23 UTC+2: > Mostowski Collapse <burs...@gmail.com> writes: > > > Which had these people behind it, potential users of it: > However, not everyone in this list supports everything in the document. > And the document is from 14 years ago: Back then, important constructs > such as if_/3, tfilter/3 etc. were not even found, and the quest for > better constructs was quite stalled. We can do better today than many of > us thought possible in 2008, or even in 2016: For example, just in these > last 6 years, we got 4 new Prolog systems (Scryer, Trealla, Tau and > ichiban/prolog) where double_quotes is set to chars by default. Who > thought that this was possible in 2008? I think even in 2012 or even > later, implementors advocated for JavaScript-style "strings" in Prolog > and even added them to their systems, until a new representation > pioneered by Scryer Prolog made chars viable in newer systems. forall/2 > probably likewise seemed necessary in 2008, but does it still seem so > today? A better, not yet found construct, could likewise make it > obsolete, just like JavaScript-style strings have now become obsolete. > > Make a GitHub search, you find many places where it is used > > by some Prolog programmer. Its kind of staple food. > You will find a lot on GitHub, a lot of Java and C code too. It could > make for an interesting analysis, however I find decisions based on such > statistics subject to certain doubts: For example, is a construct that > violates elementary logical properties good because it appears in a lot > of programs? Or does this rather show that many programs could be > improved by removing this construct entirely from the language? > > All the best, > Markus > > -- > comp.lang.prolog FAQ: http://www.logic.at/prolog/faq/ > The Power of Prolog: https://www.metalevel.at/prolog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-12 15:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <242e2f19-536c-48a5-b878-25a5203784dfn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13048 |
In Lambda Prolog you could define a findall by accempting a higher order closure using some lambda binder, here I am using (\)/2 for this purpose. findall would only have arity 2: ?- findall(X\member(X, [1,4,2]), L). L = [1, 4, 2] ?- X = 3, findall(X\member(X, [1,4,2]), L). X = 3, L = [1, 4, 2] But you have to rethink your logic programming language from ground up. You might need a different read term, or some post processing of read term. Lambda Prolog does all that. But posting turds on GitHub does nothing. It only shows that you are ignorant about possible solutions that exist since Alonzo Church, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alonzo_Church The solutions are older than the 50 years of prolog. Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2022 um 23:50:20 UTC+2: > Well the error is always the programmer, in this > case the programmer doesnt know that in Prolog > bound variables have to be „ purified“ i.e. given > > different names. For example spinning your nonsense > further far ahead, you could also demand to ban > findall from Prolog, because: > > ?- findall(X, member(X, [1,4,2], L). > L = [1, 4, 2] > > X is not instantiated in the answer, so by monotonicity, > we should be able to instantiate it, but it goes wrong: > > ?- X = 3, findall(X, member(X, [1,4,2], L). > fail > > Separating away variable names is bread and butter in > theorem proving. I dont think double_quotes chars value > is a contribution here, neither if_ etc. > > I dont find any proposal for an improvement either in > the new Prolog systems like Trealla, Scryer, etc.. > > I only find turds on GitHub all over the place forbid > this forbid that despite there is not a single outcry > by other Prolog programmers that variable > > purification is not a body convesion step in ISO standard > Prolog. Write please an amendmend to the ISO standard > or define a new language with automatic variable > > separation and then we can talk again. > > P.S.: Lambda Prolog can do it. But you would write > findall invocation slightly differently. > Markus Triska schrieb am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2022 um 19:21:23 UTC+2: > > Mostowski Collapse <burs...@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > Which had these people behind it, potential users of it: > > However, not everyone in this list supports everything in the document. > > And the document is from 14 years ago: Back then, important constructs > > such as if_/3, tfilter/3 etc. were not even found, and the quest for > > better constructs was quite stalled. We can do better today than many of > > us thought possible in 2008, or even in 2016: For example, just in these > > last 6 years, we got 4 new Prolog systems (Scryer, Trealla, Tau and > > ichiban/prolog) where double_quotes is set to chars by default. Who > > thought that this was possible in 2008? I think even in 2012 or even > > later, implementors advocated for JavaScript-style "strings" in Prolog > > and even added them to their systems, until a new representation > > pioneered by Scryer Prolog made chars viable in newer systems. forall/2 > > probably likewise seemed necessary in 2008, but does it still seem so > > today? A better, not yet found construct, could likewise make it > > obsolete, just like JavaScript-style strings have now become obsolete. > > > Make a GitHub search, you find many places where it is used > > > by some Prolog programmer. Its kind of staple food. > > You will find a lot on GitHub, a lot of Java and C code too. It could > > make for an interesting analysis, however I find decisions based on such > > statistics subject to certain doubts: For example, is a construct that > > violates elementary logical properties good because it appears in a lot > > of programs? Or does this rather show that many programs could be > > improved by removing this construct entirely from the language? > > > > All the best, > > Markus > > > > -- > > comp.lang.prolog FAQ: http://www.logic.at/prolog/faq/ > > The Power of Prolog: https://www.metalevel.at/prolog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-12 15:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e3e3ff06-25e4-402d-aee2-9b6cc7a55c44n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13049 |
Corr.: Currently in Prolog we would have: ?- X = 3, findall(X, member(X, [1,4,2]), L). X = 3, L = [] In as far forall/2 has a similar „problem“ which is usually taken care by the programmer, similarly like the programmer watches that his findalls are purified according to the use case he has. Etc.. etc… But compared to Lambda Prolog ordinary prolog is more primitive and has primafacie some inference rules missing, although a lot can be compensated by meta interpreters, little theorem provers, little new languages written in Prolog itself. But these little tools might be impure. Some lamda Prolog through its HOAS can enforce meta circular purity. Here I totally agree that Prolog lacks this feature. But you cannot add this feature by forbidding things as you do. Compared to Lamda Prolog your approach of turding Prolog by disrupting GitHub with crazy comments and no contribution has zero impact on improving the situation. Its just nonsense. Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 13. Juli 2022 um 00:01:29 UTC+2: > In Lambda Prolog you could define a findall > by accempting a higher order closure using > some lambda binder, here I am using (\)/2 for > > this purpose. findall would only have arity 2: > > ?- findall(X\member(X, [1,4,2]), L). > L = [1, 4, 2] > ?- X = 3, findall(X\member(X, [1,4,2]), L). > X = 3, > L = [1, 4, 2] > But you have to rethink your logic programming > language from ground up. You might need a different > read term, or some post processing of read term. > > Lambda Prolog does all that. But posting turds on GitHub > does nothing. It only shows that you are ignorant about > possible solutions that exist since Alonzo Church, > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alonzo_Church > > The solutions are older than the 50 years of prolog. > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2022 um 23:50:20 UTC+2: > > Well the error is always the programmer, in this > > case the programmer doesnt know that in Prolog > > bound variables have to be „ purified“ i.e. given > > > > different names. For example spinning your nonsense > > further far ahead, you could also demand to ban > > findall from Prolog, because: > > > > ?- findall(X, member(X, [1,4,2], L). > > L = [1, 4, 2] > > > > X is not instantiated in the answer, so by monotonicity, > > we should be able to instantiate it, but it goes wrong: > > > > ?- X = 3, findall(X, member(X, [1,4,2], L). > > fail > > > > Separating away variable names is bread and butter in > > theorem proving. I dont think double_quotes chars value > > is a contribution here, neither if_ etc. > > > > I dont find any proposal for an improvement either in > > the new Prolog systems like Trealla, Scryer, etc.. > > > > I only find turds on GitHub all over the place forbid > > this forbid that despite there is not a single outcry > > by other Prolog programmers that variable > > > > purification is not a body convesion step in ISO standard > > Prolog. Write please an amendmend to the ISO standard > > or define a new language with automatic variable > > > > separation and then we can talk again. > > > > P.S.: Lambda Prolog can do it. But you would write > > findall invocation slightly differently. > > Markus Triska schrieb am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2022 um 19:21:23 UTC+2: > > > Mostowski Collapse <burs...@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > > > Which had these people behind it, potential users of it: > > > However, not everyone in this list supports everything in the document. > > > And the document is from 14 years ago: Back then, important constructs > > > such as if_/3, tfilter/3 etc. were not even found, and the quest for > > > better constructs was quite stalled. We can do better today than many of > > > us thought possible in 2008, or even in 2016: For example, just in these > > > last 6 years, we got 4 new Prolog systems (Scryer, Trealla, Tau and > > > ichiban/prolog) where double_quotes is set to chars by default. Who > > > thought that this was possible in 2008? I think even in 2012 or even > > > later, implementors advocated for JavaScript-style "strings" in Prolog > > > and even added them to their systems, until a new representation > > > pioneered by Scryer Prolog made chars viable in newer systems. forall/2 > > > probably likewise seemed necessary in 2008, but does it still seem so > > > today? A better, not yet found construct, could likewise make it > > > obsolete, just like JavaScript-style strings have now become obsolete. > > > > Make a GitHub search, you find many places where it is used > > > > by some Prolog programmer. Its kind of staple food. > > > You will find a lot on GitHub, a lot of Java and C code too. It could > > > make for an interesting analysis, however I find decisions based on such > > > statistics subject to certain doubts: For example, is a construct that > > > violates elementary logical properties good because it appears in a lot > > > of programs? Or does this rather show that many programs could be > > > improved by removing this construct entirely from the language? > > > > > > All the best, > > > Markus > > > > > > -- > > > comp.lang.prolog FAQ: http://www.logic.at/prolog/faq/ > > > The Power of Prolog: https://www.metalevel.at/prolog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-12 16:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c06d38ce-e0bc-41cf-a047-31329c129a18n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13050 |
Also the uses of forall/2 have increased in the past.
Some people use it as a replacement for failure driven loop:
?- G, C, fail; true.
They write it as:
?- forall(G, C).
It has the advantage/disadvantage that it signals
failure of C. Which the failure driven loop does not do.
You find it in the wild here:
main :-
forall(number_fizzbuzz_below_100(_, FizzBuzz),
(write(FizzBuzz), write('\n'))).
https://github.com/triska/clpz/issues/12
Its from some of your users of Scryer Prolog
and some of your users of CLP(Z). So I guess
you dont know who your users are?
Good luck with that…
You are Genius like Putin.
Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 13. Juli 2022 um 00:17:00 UTC+2:
> Corr.: Currently in Prolog we would have:
>
> ?- X = 3, findall(X, member(X, [1,4,2]), L).
> X = 3,
> L = []
>
> In as far forall/2 has a similar „problem“
> which is usually taken care by the programmer,
> similarly like the programmer watches
>
> that his findalls are purified according to the
> use case he has. Etc.. etc… But compared
> to Lambda Prolog ordinary prolog is
>
> more primitive and has primafacie some inference
> rules missing, although a lot can be compensated by
> meta interpreters, little theorem provers, little
>
> new languages written in Prolog itself. But these little
> tools might be impure. Some lamda Prolog through its
> HOAS can enforce meta circular purity. Here I
>
> totally agree that Prolog lacks this feature. But you cannot
> add this feature by forbidding things as you do. Compared
> to Lamda Prolog your approach of turding Prolog
>
> by disrupting GitHub with crazy comments and
> no contribution has zero impact on improving the
> situation. Its just nonsense.
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 13. Juli 2022 um 00:01:29 UTC+2:
> > In Lambda Prolog you could define a findall
> > by accempting a higher order closure using
> > some lambda binder, here I am using (\)/2 for
> >
> > this purpose. findall would only have arity 2:
> >
> > ?- findall(X\member(X, [1,4,2]), L).
> > L = [1, 4, 2]
> > ?- X = 3, findall(X\member(X, [1,4,2]), L).
> > X = 3,
> > L = [1, 4, 2]
> > But you have to rethink your logic programming
> > language from ground up. You might need a different
> > read term, or some post processing of read term.
> >
> > Lambda Prolog does all that. But posting turds on GitHub
> > does nothing. It only shows that you are ignorant about
> > possible solutions that exist since Alonzo Church,
> >
> > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alonzo_Church
> >
> > The solutions are older than the 50 years of prolog.
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2022 um 23:50:20 UTC+2:
> > > Well the error is always the programmer, in this
> > > case the programmer doesnt know that in Prolog
> > > bound variables have to be „ purified“ i.e. given
> > >
> > > different names. For example spinning your nonsense
> > > further far ahead, you could also demand to ban
> > > findall from Prolog, because:
> > >
> > > ?- findall(X, member(X, [1,4,2], L).
> > > L = [1, 4, 2]
> > >
> > > X is not instantiated in the answer, so by monotonicity,
> > > we should be able to instantiate it, but it goes wrong:
> > >
> > > ?- X = 3, findall(X, member(X, [1,4,2], L).
> > > fail
> > >
> > > Separating away variable names is bread and butter in
> > > theorem proving. I dont think double_quotes chars value
> > > is a contribution here, neither if_ etc.
> > >
> > > I dont find any proposal for an improvement either in
> > > the new Prolog systems like Trealla, Scryer, etc..
> > >
> > > I only find turds on GitHub all over the place forbid
> > > this forbid that despite there is not a single outcry
> > > by other Prolog programmers that variable
> > >
> > > purification is not a body convesion step in ISO standard
> > > Prolog. Write please an amendmend to the ISO standard
> > > or define a new language with automatic variable
> > >
> > > separation and then we can talk again.
> > >
> > > P.S.: Lambda Prolog can do it. But you would write
> > > findall invocation slightly differently.
> > > Markus Triska schrieb am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2022 um 19:21:23 UTC+2:
> > > > Mostowski Collapse <burs...@gmail.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Which had these people behind it, potential users of it:
> > > > However, not everyone in this list supports everything in the document.
> > > > And the document is from 14 years ago: Back then, important constructs
> > > > such as if_/3, tfilter/3 etc. were not even found, and the quest for
> > > > better constructs was quite stalled. We can do better today than many of
> > > > us thought possible in 2008, or even in 2016: For example, just in these
> > > > last 6 years, we got 4 new Prolog systems (Scryer, Trealla, Tau and
> > > > ichiban/prolog) where double_quotes is set to chars by default. Who
> > > > thought that this was possible in 2008? I think even in 2012 or even
> > > > later, implementors advocated for JavaScript-style "strings" in Prolog
> > > > and even added them to their systems, until a new representation
> > > > pioneered by Scryer Prolog made chars viable in newer systems. forall/2
> > > > probably likewise seemed necessary in 2008, but does it still seem so
> > > > today? A better, not yet found construct, could likewise make it
> > > > obsolete, just like JavaScript-style strings have now become obsolete.
> > > > > Make a GitHub search, you find many places where it is used
> > > > > by some Prolog programmer. Its kind of staple food.
> > > > You will find a lot on GitHub, a lot of Java and C code too. It could
> > > > make for an interesting analysis, however I find decisions based on such
> > > > statistics subject to certain doubts: For example, is a construct that
> > > > violates elementary logical properties good because it appears in a lot
> > > > of programs? Or does this rather show that many programs could be
> > > > improved by removing this construct entirely from the language?
> > > >
> > > > All the best,
> > > > Markus
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > comp.lang.prolog FAQ: http://www.logic.at/prolog/faq/
> > > > The Power of Prolog: https://www.metalevel.at/prolog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-12 16:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <922650d6-1ca0-4cd1-8792-e5a5a9382dd7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13051 |
Also there are quite capable people in the SWI Prolog
discourse group, that where discussing forall/2
versus foreach/2, repeatedly showing some
deep understanding of the constructs, which I find
lacking if somebody critizises the construct based
on a usage error in the form
of lack of purification. That paints one into a corner
of not understanding the construct at all. Last but
not least s(CASP) starting with s(ASP),
have also found uses for some forms of forall/2.
Just read the papers follow the forums and
inspect the systems. forall/2 has
come to amazing new life. forall is also
not the worst name of the predicate, since it can
provide the so called bounded universal quantifier,
under certain circumstances you can tranlate it
(this is left as an exercise):
ALL(x):[A => B]
But I have recently started calling it Peano
implication, since Giuseppe Peano used the
following notation for it:
A =>x B
putting more emphasis on the underlying
implication than on the universally
bound variable.
Have Fun!
Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 13. Juli 2022 um 01:02:47 UTC+2:
> Also the uses of forall/2 have increased in the past.
> Some people use it as a replacement for failure driven loop:
>
> ?- G, C, fail; true.
>
> They write it as:
>
> ?- forall(G, C).
>
> It has the advantage/disadvantage that it signals
> failure of C. Which the failure driven loop does not do.
> You find it in the wild here:
>
> main :-
> forall(number_fizzbuzz_below_100(_, FizzBuzz),
> (write(FizzBuzz), write('\n'))).
>
> https://github.com/triska/clpz/issues/12
>
> Its from some of your users of Scryer Prolog
> and some of your users of CLP(Z). So I guess
> you dont know who your users are?
>
> Good luck with that…
> You are Genius like Putin.
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 13. Juli 2022 um 00:17:00 UTC+2:
> > Corr.: Currently in Prolog we would have:
> >
> > ?- X = 3, findall(X, member(X, [1,4,2]), L).
> > X = 3,
> > L = []
> >
> > In as far forall/2 has a similar „problem“
> > which is usually taken care by the programmer,
> > similarly like the programmer watches
> >
> > that his findalls are purified according to the
> > use case he has. Etc.. etc… But compared
> > to Lambda Prolog ordinary prolog is
> >
> > more primitive and has primafacie some inference
> > rules missing, although a lot can be compensated by
> > meta interpreters, little theorem provers, little
> >
> > new languages written in Prolog itself. But these little
> > tools might be impure. Some lamda Prolog through its
> > HOAS can enforce meta circular purity. Here I
> >
> > totally agree that Prolog lacks this feature. But you cannot
> > add this feature by forbidding things as you do. Compared
> > to Lamda Prolog your approach of turding Prolog
> >
> > by disrupting GitHub with crazy comments and
> > no contribution has zero impact on improving the
> > situation. Its just nonsense.
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 13. Juli 2022 um 00:01:29 UTC+2:
> > > In Lambda Prolog you could define a findall
> > > by accempting a higher order closure using
> > > some lambda binder, here I am using (\)/2 for
> > >
> > > this purpose. findall would only have arity 2:
> > >
> > > ?- findall(X\member(X, [1,4,2]), L).
> > > L = [1, 4, 2]
> > > ?- X = 3, findall(X\member(X, [1,4,2]), L).
> > > X = 3,
> > > L = [1, 4, 2]
> > > But you have to rethink your logic programming
> > > language from ground up. You might need a different
> > > read term, or some post processing of read term.
> > >
> > > Lambda Prolog does all that. But posting turds on GitHub
> > > does nothing. It only shows that you are ignorant about
> > > possible solutions that exist since Alonzo Church,
> > >
> > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alonzo_Church
> > >
> > > The solutions are older than the 50 years of prolog.
> > > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2022 um 23:50:20 UTC+2:
> > > > Well the error is always the programmer, in this
> > > > case the programmer doesnt know that in Prolog
> > > > bound variables have to be „ purified“ i.e. given
> > > >
> > > > different names. For example spinning your nonsense
> > > > further far ahead, you could also demand to ban
> > > > findall from Prolog, because:
> > > >
> > > > ?- findall(X, member(X, [1,4,2], L).
> > > > L = [1, 4, 2]
> > > >
> > > > X is not instantiated in the answer, so by monotonicity,
> > > > we should be able to instantiate it, but it goes wrong:
> > > >
> > > > ?- X = 3, findall(X, member(X, [1,4,2], L).
> > > > fail
> > > >
> > > > Separating away variable names is bread and butter in
> > > > theorem proving. I dont think double_quotes chars value
> > > > is a contribution here, neither if_ etc.
> > > >
> > > > I dont find any proposal for an improvement either in
> > > > the new Prolog systems like Trealla, Scryer, etc..
> > > >
> > > > I only find turds on GitHub all over the place forbid
> > > > this forbid that despite there is not a single outcry
> > > > by other Prolog programmers that variable
> > > >
> > > > purification is not a body convesion step in ISO standard
> > > > Prolog. Write please an amendmend to the ISO standard
> > > > or define a new language with automatic variable
> > > >
> > > > separation and then we can talk again.
> > > >
> > > > P.S.: Lambda Prolog can do it. But you would write
> > > > findall invocation slightly differently.
> > > > Markus Triska schrieb am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2022 um 19:21:23 UTC+2:
> > > > > Mostowski Collapse <burs...@gmail.com> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Which had these people behind it, potential users of it:
> > > > > However, not everyone in this list supports everything in the document.
> > > > > And the document is from 14 years ago: Back then, important constructs
> > > > > such as if_/3, tfilter/3 etc. were not even found, and the quest for
> > > > > better constructs was quite stalled. We can do better today than many of
> > > > > us thought possible in 2008, or even in 2016: For example, just in these
> > > > > last 6 years, we got 4 new Prolog systems (Scryer, Trealla, Tau and
> > > > > ichiban/prolog) where double_quotes is set to chars by default. Who
> > > > > thought that this was possible in 2008? I think even in 2012 or even
> > > > > later, implementors advocated for JavaScript-style "strings" in Prolog
> > > > > and even added them to their systems, until a new representation
> > > > > pioneered by Scryer Prolog made chars viable in newer systems. forall/2
> > > > > probably likewise seemed necessary in 2008, but does it still seem so
> > > > > today? A better, not yet found construct, could likewise make it
> > > > > obsolete, just like JavaScript-style strings have now become obsolete.
> > > > > > Make a GitHub search, you find many places where it is used
> > > > > > by some Prolog programmer. Its kind of staple food.
> > > > > You will find a lot on GitHub, a lot of Java and C code too. It could
> > > > > make for an interesting analysis, however I find decisions based on such
> > > > > statistics subject to certain doubts: For example, is a construct that
> > > > > violates elementary logical properties good because it appears in a lot
> > > > > of programs? Or does this rather show that many programs could be
> > > > > improved by removing this construct entirely from the language?
> > > > >
> > > > > All the best,
> > > > > Markus
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > comp.lang.prolog FAQ: http://www.logic.at/prolog/faq/
> > > > > The Power of Prolog: https://www.metalevel.at/prolog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-12 16:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9eddc0c6-1e9e-4d89-8486-1a7b6c74db7cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13052 |
Peanos conditional made it
even into the Principia Mathematica:
Before we look at a wider range of examples, a detailed
example involving quantified variables will prove to be
instructive. Whitehead and Russell follow Peano’s
practice of expressing universally quantified conditionals
(such as “All ps are qs”) with the bound variable
subscripted under the conditional sign.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pm-notation/#Exam
Lets make Peano great again!
Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 13. Juli 2022 um 01:22:27 UTC+2:
> Also there are quite capable people in the SWI Prolog
> discourse group, that where discussing forall/2
> versus foreach/2, repeatedly showing some
>
> deep understanding of the constructs, which I find
> lacking if somebody critizises the construct based
> on a usage error in the form
>
> of lack of purification. That paints one into a corner
> of not understanding the construct at all. Last but
> not least s(CASP) starting with s(ASP),
>
> have also found uses for some forms of forall/2.
> Just read the papers follow the forums and
> inspect the systems. forall/2 has
>
> come to amazing new life. forall is also
> not the worst name of the predicate, since it can
> provide the so called bounded universal quantifier,
>
> under certain circumstances you can tranlate it
> (this is left as an exercise):
>
> ALL(x):[A => B]
>
> But I have recently started calling it Peano
> implication, since Giuseppe Peano used the
> following notation for it:
>
> A =>x B
>
> putting more emphasis on the underlying
> implication than on the universally
> bound variable.
>
> Have Fun!
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 13. Juli 2022 um 01:02:47 UTC+2:
> > Also the uses of forall/2 have increased in the past.
> > Some people use it as a replacement for failure driven loop:
> >
> > ?- G, C, fail; true.
> >
> > They write it as:
> >
> > ?- forall(G, C).
> >
> > It has the advantage/disadvantage that it signals
> > failure of C. Which the failure driven loop does not do.
> > You find it in the wild here:
> >
> > main :-
> > forall(number_fizzbuzz_below_100(_, FizzBuzz),
> > (write(FizzBuzz), write('\n'))).
> >
> > https://github.com/triska/clpz/issues/12
> >
> > Its from some of your users of Scryer Prolog
> > and some of your users of CLP(Z). So I guess
> > you dont know who your users are?
> >
> > Good luck with that…
> > You are Genius like Putin.
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 13. Juli 2022 um 00:17:00 UTC+2:
> > > Corr.: Currently in Prolog we would have:
> > >
> > > ?- X = 3, findall(X, member(X, [1,4,2]), L).
> > > X = 3,
> > > L = []
> > >
> > > In as far forall/2 has a similar „problem“
> > > which is usually taken care by the programmer,
> > > similarly like the programmer watches
> > >
> > > that his findalls are purified according to the
> > > use case he has. Etc.. etc… But compared
> > > to Lambda Prolog ordinary prolog is
> > >
> > > more primitive and has primafacie some inference
> > > rules missing, although a lot can be compensated by
> > > meta interpreters, little theorem provers, little
> > >
> > > new languages written in Prolog itself. But these little
> > > tools might be impure. Some lamda Prolog through its
> > > HOAS can enforce meta circular purity. Here I
> > >
> > > totally agree that Prolog lacks this feature. But you cannot
> > > add this feature by forbidding things as you do. Compared
> > > to Lamda Prolog your approach of turding Prolog
> > >
> > > by disrupting GitHub with crazy comments and
> > > no contribution has zero impact on improving the
> > > situation. Its just nonsense.
> > > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 13. Juli 2022 um 00:01:29 UTC+2:
> > > > In Lambda Prolog you could define a findall
> > > > by accempting a higher order closure using
> > > > some lambda binder, here I am using (\)/2 for
> > > >
> > > > this purpose. findall would only have arity 2:
> > > >
> > > > ?- findall(X\member(X, [1,4,2]), L).
> > > > L = [1, 4, 2]
> > > > ?- X = 3, findall(X\member(X, [1,4,2]), L).
> > > > X = 3,
> > > > L = [1, 4, 2]
> > > > But you have to rethink your logic programming
> > > > language from ground up. You might need a different
> > > > read term, or some post processing of read term.
> > > >
> > > > Lambda Prolog does all that. But posting turds on GitHub
> > > > does nothing. It only shows that you are ignorant about
> > > > possible solutions that exist since Alonzo Church,
> > > >
> > > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alonzo_Church
> > > >
> > > > The solutions are older than the 50 years of prolog.
> > > > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2022 um 23:50:20 UTC+2:
> > > > > Well the error is always the programmer, in this
> > > > > case the programmer doesnt know that in Prolog
> > > > > bound variables have to be „ purified“ i.e. given
> > > > >
> > > > > different names. For example spinning your nonsense
> > > > > further far ahead, you could also demand to ban
> > > > > findall from Prolog, because:
> > > > >
> > > > > ?- findall(X, member(X, [1,4,2], L).
> > > > > L = [1, 4, 2]
> > > > >
> > > > > X is not instantiated in the answer, so by monotonicity,
> > > > > we should be able to instantiate it, but it goes wrong:
> > > > >
> > > > > ?- X = 3, findall(X, member(X, [1,4,2], L).
> > > > > fail
> > > > >
> > > > > Separating away variable names is bread and butter in
> > > > > theorem proving. I dont think double_quotes chars value
> > > > > is a contribution here, neither if_ etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > I dont find any proposal for an improvement either in
> > > > > the new Prolog systems like Trealla, Scryer, etc..
> > > > >
> > > > > I only find turds on GitHub all over the place forbid
> > > > > this forbid that despite there is not a single outcry
> > > > > by other Prolog programmers that variable
> > > > >
> > > > > purification is not a body convesion step in ISO standard
> > > > > Prolog. Write please an amendmend to the ISO standard
> > > > > or define a new language with automatic variable
> > > > >
> > > > > separation and then we can talk again.
> > > > >
> > > > > P.S.: Lambda Prolog can do it. But you would write
> > > > > findall invocation slightly differently.
> > > > > Markus Triska schrieb am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2022 um 19:21:23 UTC+2:
> > > > > > Mostowski Collapse <burs...@gmail.com> writes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Which had these people behind it, potential users of it:
> > > > > > However, not everyone in this list supports everything in the document.
> > > > > > And the document is from 14 years ago: Back then, important constructs
> > > > > > such as if_/3, tfilter/3 etc. were not even found, and the quest for
> > > > > > better constructs was quite stalled. We can do better today than many of
> > > > > > us thought possible in 2008, or even in 2016: For example, just in these
> > > > > > last 6 years, we got 4 new Prolog systems (Scryer, Trealla, Tau and
> > > > > > ichiban/prolog) where double_quotes is set to chars by default. Who
> > > > > > thought that this was possible in 2008? I think even in 2012 or even
> > > > > > later, implementors advocated for JavaScript-style "strings" in Prolog
> > > > > > and even added them to their systems, until a new representation
> > > > > > pioneered by Scryer Prolog made chars viable in newer systems. forall/2
> > > > > > probably likewise seemed necessary in 2008, but does it still seem so
> > > > > > today? A better, not yet found construct, could likewise make it
> > > > > > obsolete, just like JavaScript-style strings have now become obsolete.
> > > > > > > Make a GitHub search, you find many places where it is used
> > > > > > > by some Prolog programmer. Its kind of staple food.
> > > > > > You will find a lot on GitHub, a lot of Java and C code too. It could
> > > > > > make for an interesting analysis, however I find decisions based on such
> > > > > > statistics subject to certain doubts: For example, is a construct that
> > > > > > violates elementary logical properties good because it appears in a lot
> > > > > > of programs? Or does this rather show that many programs could be
> > > > > > improved by removing this construct entirely from the language?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All the best,
> > > > > > Markus
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > comp.lang.prolog FAQ: http://www.logic.at/prolog/faq/
> > > > > > The Power of Prolog: https://www.metalevel.at/prolog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-13 07:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <db4884ea-268d-4d4b-9e1c-ee8e23d9633cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13053 |
Small addendum. In certain situations (\+ A) acts as ¬A, but in other situations it can also act as ¬∃x1..,∃xnA for some variables x1,..,xn. Same for forall/2, in certain situations forall(A,B) acts as A → B, but it can also act as ∀x1..,∀xn(A → ∃y1..∃ymB). So its more complicated than only forall quantifier, its forall quantifier implication existential quantifier. But when is it Peano implication? Well, for example if the second formula, i.e. B is ground negation, if during execution, from the bindings after A the currently invoked B is already ground. The the result of forall/2 is not this: ∀x1..,∀xn(A → ∃y1..∃ymB) But only this: ∀x1..,∀xn(A → B) Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 13. Juli 2022 um 01:32:58 UTC+2: > Peanos conditional made it > even into the Principia Mathematica: > > Before we look at a wider range of examples, a detailed > example involving quantified variables will prove to be > instructive. Whitehead and Russell follow Peano’s > > practice of expressing universally quantified conditionals > (such as “All ps are qs”) with the bound variable > subscripted under the conditional sign. > > https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pm-notation/#Exam > > Lets make Peano great again!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-04 17:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <776d1dff-fdbc-4f98-ac73-c7b987e66339n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13054 |
Ciao Prologs “State of the Art” is rather the
night mare of “The Art of loosing State”.
?- assertz(foo).
yes
?- foo.
yes
?- repeat, fail.
{ Execution aborted }
?- foo.
{ERROR: No handle found for thrown exception error(existence_error(procedure,'user:foo'/0),'user:foo'/0)}
aborted
https://ciao-lang.org/playground/
I hope SWI-Prolog will not blindly immitate
every nonsense from Ciao Prolog.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-04 18:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <98ad3212-8093-488e-998d-ebe8e5204c2en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13076 |
Workers do still synchronously process message
they receive. As a result Ciao cannot send an “abort”
control to a worker, since Ciao Prolog itself inside
the worker is not asyncified. As a result I see one
Worker going down and another Worker comming
up, when I press Abort button in Ciao, and the
dynamic database state is gone. Bye Bye.
BTW: As soon as you have asyncified your Prolog
interpreter, you don't need the single worker anymore.
Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 02:58:17 UTC+2:
> Ciao Prologs “State of the Art” is rather the
> night mare of “The Art of loosing State”.
>
> ?- assertz(foo).
> yes
>
> ?- foo.
> yes
>
> ?- repeat, fail.
> { Execution aborted }
>
> ?- foo.
> {ERROR: No handle found for thrown exception error(existence_error(procedure,'user:foo'/0),'user:foo'/0)}
> aborted
>
> https://ciao-lang.org/playground/
>
> I hope SWI-Prolog will not blindly immitate
> every nonsense from Ciao Prolog.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-05 01:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fb646080-0f83-4ea0-b102-3a0cf6d0012fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13077 |
Question was, what means syncify?
It means that you turn your Prolog interpreter into an Engine
that can yield, but that you also have some auto-yielding.
So that the the browser or node.exe can process operating
system tasks while the Prolog system is running. Basically the
JavaScript async/await is an extended iterator code rewriting
of a form of yield, which yields promises. If you take this path
you would also need to extended the engine concept so that
you can voluntarily yield promises, like for example for a fetch.
In such a scenario the Prolog system might appear to block,
this is the other illusion the asyncification can create. Basically
you can create the following illusions by asyncification
without the need of a pre-emptive scheduler:
- Non-blocking parallelism between Prolog system and operating system
- Blocking wait for completion of some operating system tasks
Optionally you can also use it for multiple Prolog threads, but
I don’t see a point in doing this. So I branded this “misuse”.
But you could do this as well and it has certainly some use
cases if the multiple Prolog threads do a lot of operating
system tasks. But it is missing in the above list for the moment,
so conceptionally there are only “two” co-routines the single
threaded Prolog system and the operating system tasks event
loop provided by the browser or node.exe. In the same way its
possible to make a Python variant of such an engine.
Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 03:01:16 UTC+2:
> Workers do still synchronously process message
> they receive. As a result Ciao cannot send an “abort”
> control to a worker, since Ciao Prolog itself inside
>
> the worker is not asyncified. As a result I see one
> Worker going down and another Worker comming
> up, when I press Abort button in Ciao, and the
>
> dynamic database state is gone. Bye Bye.
>
> BTW: As soon as you have asyncified your Prolog
> interpreter, you don't need the single worker anymore.
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 02:58:17 UTC+2:
> > Ciao Prologs “State of the Art” is rather the
> > night mare of “The Art of loosing State”.
> >
> > ?- assertz(foo).
> > yes
> >
> > ?- foo.
> > yes
> >
> > ?- repeat, fail.
> > { Execution aborted }
> >
> > ?- foo.
> > {ERROR: No handle found for thrown exception error(existence_error(procedure,'user:foo'/0),'user:foo'/0)}
> > aborted
> >
> > https://ciao-lang.org/playground/
> >
> > I hope SWI-Prolog will not blindly immitate
> > every nonsense from Ciao Prolog.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-05 01:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6c22406d-adb5-4116-8b4d-8c406959741an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13078 |
It was two questions already, or a different question altogether,
namely asking for WASM as well.
Disclaimer: Oh my, I invented the word “asyncify” spontanously
yesterday. But it has also some meaning in relation to WASM.
My previous portraying is from experience with CheerpJ, Tau-
Prolog and Dogelog, and only CheerpJ has WASM (the recent
version using 64-bit). Maybe for more WASM specific questions
you need to consult other source, I find for example:
https://web.dev/asyncify/
Possibly when the above community is talking about asyncification
it has a total different meaning then what I described. Attention! Attention!
Also CheerpJ comes without auto-yielding. You can add it
yourself, by calling Java Thread.yield(), it was an undocumented
feature of CheerpJ. But in CheerpJ I could not yield promises so
easily, maybe there is an exotic Java API, and then there
is a danger that CheerpJ doesn’t support it, since it is rather
tailord towards bringing some convetional Swing/Standalone
applications to the web, so this is a specific new feature of the
Dogelog engine, breaking out of a particular Java world.
Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 10:16:49 UTC+2:
> Question was, what means syncify?
>
> It means that you turn your Prolog interpreter into an Engine
> that can yield, but that you also have some auto-yielding.
> So that the the browser or node.exe can process operating
>
> system tasks while the Prolog system is running. Basically the
> JavaScript async/await is an extended iterator code rewriting
> of a form of yield, which yields promises. If you take this path
>
> you would also need to extended the engine concept so that
> you can voluntarily yield promises, like for example for a fetch.
> In such a scenario the Prolog system might appear to block,
>
> this is the other illusion the asyncification can create. Basically
> you can create the following illusions by asyncification
> without the need of a pre-emptive scheduler:
>
> - Non-blocking parallelism between Prolog system and operating system
> - Blocking wait for completion of some operating system tasks
>
> Optionally you can also use it for multiple Prolog threads, but
> I don’t see a point in doing this. So I branded this “misuse”.
> But you could do this as well and it has certainly some use
>
> cases if the multiple Prolog threads do a lot of operating
> system tasks. But it is missing in the above list for the moment,
> so conceptionally there are only “two” co-routines the single
>
> threaded Prolog system and the operating system tasks event
> loop provided by the browser or node.exe. In the same way its
> possible to make a Python variant of such an engine.
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 03:01:16 UTC+2:
> > Workers do still synchronously process message
> > they receive. As a result Ciao cannot send an “abort”
> > control to a worker, since Ciao Prolog itself inside
> >
> > the worker is not asyncified. As a result I see one
> > Worker going down and another Worker comming
> > up, when I press Abort button in Ciao, and the
> >
> > dynamic database state is gone. Bye Bye.
> >
> > BTW: As soon as you have asyncified your Prolog
> > interpreter, you don't need the single worker anymore.
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 02:58:17 UTC+2:
> > > Ciao Prologs “State of the Art” is rather the
> > > night mare of “The Art of loosing State”.
> > >
> > > ?- assertz(foo).
> > > yes
> > >
> > > ?- foo.
> > > yes
> > >
> > > ?- repeat, fail.
> > > { Execution aborted }
> > >
> > > ?- foo.
> > > {ERROR: No handle found for thrown exception error(existence_error(procedure,'user:foo'/0),'user:foo'/0)}
> > > aborted
> > >
> > > https://ciao-lang.org/playground/
> > >
> > > I hope SWI-Prolog will not blindly immitate
> > > every nonsense from Ciao Prolog.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-05 04:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <06e0236a-4538-4b76-8206-c3041372d741n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13079 |
Thanks to my testing sixth sense, the first Ciao Playground issue:
https://github.com/ciao-lang/ciao_playground/issues/1
I hope its not ending like Scryer Prolog, which has a wooping
223 open tickets, tendency is not yet that the number of open
tickets goes down.
My favorite formula for such an explosion of tickets is:
The Ticket Backlog Curve
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=1+-+exp%28-x%29+-+x%2F3+from+0+to+3
So an initial explosion of tickets is linearly reduced.
Where in this curve is Scryer Prolog right now?
Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 10:19:46 UTC+2:
> It was two questions already, or a different question altogether,
> namely asking for WASM as well.
>
> Disclaimer: Oh my, I invented the word “asyncify” spontanously
> yesterday. But it has also some meaning in relation to WASM.
> My previous portraying is from experience with CheerpJ, Tau-
>
> Prolog and Dogelog, and only CheerpJ has WASM (the recent
> version using 64-bit). Maybe for more WASM specific questions
> you need to consult other source, I find for example:
>
> https://web.dev/asyncify/
>
> Possibly when the above community is talking about asyncification
> it has a total different meaning then what I described. Attention! Attention!
>
> Also CheerpJ comes without auto-yielding. You can add it
> yourself, by calling Java Thread.yield(), it was an undocumented
> feature of CheerpJ. But in CheerpJ I could not yield promises so
>
> easily, maybe there is an exotic Java API, and then there
> is a danger that CheerpJ doesn’t support it, since it is rather
> tailord towards bringing some convetional Swing/Standalone
>
> applications to the web, so this is a specific new feature of the
> Dogelog engine, breaking out of a particular Java world.
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 10:16:49 UTC+2:
> > Question was, what means syncify?
> >
> > It means that you turn your Prolog interpreter into an Engine
> > that can yield, but that you also have some auto-yielding.
> > So that the the browser or node.exe can process operating
> >
> > system tasks while the Prolog system is running. Basically the
> > JavaScript async/await is an extended iterator code rewriting
> > of a form of yield, which yields promises. If you take this path
> >
> > you would also need to extended the engine concept so that
> > you can voluntarily yield promises, like for example for a fetch.
> > In such a scenario the Prolog system might appear to block,
> >
> > this is the other illusion the asyncification can create. Basically
> > you can create the following illusions by asyncification
> > without the need of a pre-emptive scheduler:
> >
> > - Non-blocking parallelism between Prolog system and operating system
> > - Blocking wait for completion of some operating system tasks
> >
> > Optionally you can also use it for multiple Prolog threads, but
> > I don’t see a point in doing this. So I branded this “misuse”.
> > But you could do this as well and it has certainly some use
> >
> > cases if the multiple Prolog threads do a lot of operating
> > system tasks. But it is missing in the above list for the moment,
> > so conceptionally there are only “two” co-routines the single
> >
> > threaded Prolog system and the operating system tasks event
> > loop provided by the browser or node.exe. In the same way its
> > possible to make a Python variant of such an engine.
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 03:01:16 UTC+2:
> > > Workers do still synchronously process message
> > > they receive. As a result Ciao cannot send an “abort”
> > > control to a worker, since Ciao Prolog itself inside
> > >
> > > the worker is not asyncified. As a result I see one
> > > Worker going down and another Worker comming
> > > up, when I press Abort button in Ciao, and the
> > >
> > > dynamic database state is gone. Bye Bye.
> > >
> > > BTW: As soon as you have asyncified your Prolog
> > > interpreter, you don't need the single worker anymore.
> > > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 02:58:17 UTC+2:
> > > > Ciao Prologs “State of the Art” is rather the
> > > > night mare of “The Art of loosing State”.
> > > >
> > > > ?- assertz(foo).
> > > > yes
> > > >
> > > > ?- foo.
> > > > yes
> > > >
> > > > ?- repeat, fail.
> > > > { Execution aborted }
> > > >
> > > > ?- foo.
> > > > {ERROR: No handle found for thrown exception error(existence_error(procedure,'user:foo'/0),'user:foo'/0)}
> > > > aborted
> > > >
> > > > https://ciao-lang.org/playground/
> > > >
> > > > I hope SWI-Prolog will not blindly immitate
> > > > every nonsense from Ciao Prolog.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-05 04:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ba2c670e-c040-49df-b98e-2d130488eeecn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13080 |
Many WASM projects now coming out of the closet. My expectation, this is only a win win situation in the long run, but it might be painful at the beginning. For a stealth project, which wasn’t on GitHub from the beginning, and which has some non-public tickets somewhere, its more difficult to estimate the current standing from the outside. For Scryer Prolog the struggle is minutely documented: Compiling and running scryer as a WebAssembly binary? https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/issues/615 Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 13:07:29 UTC+2: > Thanks to my testing sixth sense, the first Ciao Playground issue: > https://github.com/ciao-lang/ciao_playground/issues/1 > > I hope its not ending like Scryer Prolog, which has a wooping > 223 open tickets, tendency is not yet that the number of open > tickets goes down. > > My favorite formula for such an explosion of tickets is: > > The Ticket Backlog Curve > https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=1+-+exp%28-x%29+-+x%2F3+from+0+to+3 > > So an initial explosion of tickets is linearly reduced. > Where in this curve is Scryer Prolog right now?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-05 07:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <919fdcf2-9174-4373-9166-67ba8384dc53n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13081 |
How it started: Somebody wrote yesterday: "For anyone finding this project interesting, we kindly as everyone to try and explore our system, file issue reports, contribute, and of course star our repository :wink: . BTW, this reminds me that it is really a pity that we do not have a common Prolog forum to discuss, like in the old days. Newsgroups do not work, and a “single system” discourse group is not a solution." How its going: A few hours ago, when starting to make visible some limitations, everything diverted in a blink from “hello community” to “bilateralism”. Somebody wrote today: "I’m happy to have a discussion on exchanging code and ideas between our projects. I think a telco is a better medium for that than here. Just drop me a personal message." Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 13:25:37 UTC+2: > Many WASM projects now coming out of the closet. My expectation, > this is only a win win situation in the long run, but it might be > painful at the beginning. > > For a stealth project, which wasn’t on GitHub from the beginning, > and which has some non-public tickets somewhere, its more > difficult to estimate the current standing from the outside. > > For Scryer Prolog the struggle is minutely documented: > > Compiling and running scryer as a WebAssembly binary? > https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/issues/615 > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 13:07:29 UTC+2: > > Thanks to my testing sixth sense, the first Ciao Playground issue: > > https://github.com/ciao-lang/ciao_playground/issues/1 > > > > I hope its not ending like Scryer Prolog, which has a wooping > > 223 open tickets, tendency is not yet that the number of open > > tickets goes down. > > > > My favorite formula for such an explosion of tickets is: > > > > The Ticket Backlog Curve > > https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=1+-+exp%28-x%29+-+x%2F3+from+0+to+3 > > > > So an initial explosion of tickets is linearly reduced. > > Where in this curve is Scryer Prolog right now?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-05 07:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2d996885-ad17-4e96-a7fe-5cea9318ddc7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13082 |
Anyway, I have an admin questions, so playground tickets don’t go into the Ciao Playground repo but into the Ciao repo? Historically Bilateralism does not have a good Reputation "The first rejection of bilateralism came after the First World War when many politicians concluded that the complex pre-war system of bilateral treaties had made war inevitable." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilateralism#History So we might see some Prolog Web API wars in the near future? Because of some coalition formation between SWI-Prolog and Ciao Prolog? And then them against the rest of the Prolog world? Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 16:56:06 UTC+2: > How it started: > > Somebody wrote yesterday: > "For anyone finding this project interesting, we kindly as > everyone to try and explore our system, file issue reports, > contribute, and of course star our repository :wink: . > > BTW, this reminds me that it is really a pity that we do > not have a common Prolog forum to discuss, like in the old days. > Newsgroups do not work, and a “single system” > > discourse group is not a solution." > > How its going: > > A few hours ago, when starting to make visible some > limitations, everything diverted in a blink from “hello > community” to “bilateralism”. > > Somebody wrote today: > "I’m happy to have a discussion on exchanging code and > ideas between our projects. I think a telco is a better medium > for that than here. Just drop me a personal message." > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 13:25:37 UTC+2: > > Many WASM projects now coming out of the closet. My expectation, > > this is only a win win situation in the long run, but it might be > > painful at the beginning. > > > > For a stealth project, which wasn’t on GitHub from the beginning, > > and which has some non-public tickets somewhere, its more > > difficult to estimate the current standing from the outside. > > > > For Scryer Prolog the struggle is minutely documented: > > > > Compiling and running scryer as a WebAssembly binary? > > https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/issues/615 > > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 13:07:29 UTC+2: > > > Thanks to my testing sixth sense, the first Ciao Playground issue: > > > https://github.com/ciao-lang/ciao_playground/issues/1 > > > > > > I hope its not ending like Scryer Prolog, which has a wooping > > > 223 open tickets, tendency is not yet that the number of open > > > tickets goes down. > > > > > > My favorite formula for such an explosion of tickets is: > > > > > > The Ticket Backlog Curve > > > https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=1+-+exp%28-x%29+-+x%2F3+from+0+to+3 > > > > > > So an initial explosion of tickets is linearly reduced. > > > Where in this curve is Scryer Prolog right now?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-05 08:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ca4834a1-9b0b-41ac-bc5d-30e9b45557bcn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13083 |
So for how long should we buy popcorn? How long will this Prolog Web API wars last, months to years? LoL Thats actually the most astonishing und upredictable thing here, the time scale. Can the unknown be planned? Is a late adopter in a more advantageous position. What if his system, like for example SWI-Prolog, is rather larger Prolog system, organically grown for certain target systems, and also moved away over the past from the small ISO core standard. Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 16:56:57 UTC+2: > Anyway, I have an admin questions, so playground tickets > don’t go into the Ciao Playground repo but into the Ciao repo? > Historically Bilateralism does not have a good Reputation > > "The first rejection of bilateralism came after the First World War > when many politicians concluded that the complex pre-war > system of bilateral treaties had made war inevitable." > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilateralism#History > > So we might see some Prolog Web API wars in the near future? > Because of some coalition formation between SWI-Prolog and > Ciao Prolog? And then them against the rest of the Prolog world? > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 16:56:06 UTC+2: > > How it started: > > > > Somebody wrote yesterday: > > "For anyone finding this project interesting, we kindly as > > everyone to try and explore our system, file issue reports, > > contribute, and of course star our repository :wink: . > > > > BTW, this reminds me that it is really a pity that we do > > not have a common Prolog forum to discuss, like in the old days. > > Newsgroups do not work, and a “single system” > > > > discourse group is not a solution." > > > > How its going: > > > > A few hours ago, when starting to make visible some > > limitations, everything diverted in a blink from “hello > > community” to “bilateralism”. > > > > Somebody wrote today: > > "I’m happy to have a discussion on exchanging code and > > ideas between our projects. I think a telco is a better medium > > for that than here. Just drop me a personal message." > > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 13:25:37 UTC+2: > > > Many WASM projects now coming out of the closet. My expectation, > > > this is only a win win situation in the long run, but it might be > > > painful at the beginning. > > > > > > For a stealth project, which wasn’t on GitHub from the beginning, > > > and which has some non-public tickets somewhere, its more > > > difficult to estimate the current standing from the outside. > > > > > > For Scryer Prolog the struggle is minutely documented: > > > > > > Compiling and running scryer as a WebAssembly binary? > > > https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/issues/615 > > > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 13:07:29 UTC+2: > > > > Thanks to my testing sixth sense, the first Ciao Playground issue: > > > > https://github.com/ciao-lang/ciao_playground/issues/1 > > > > > > > > I hope its not ending like Scryer Prolog, which has a wooping > > > > 223 open tickets, tendency is not yet that the number of open > > > > tickets goes down. > > > > > > > > My favorite formula for such an explosion of tickets is: > > > > > > > > The Ticket Backlog Curve > > > > https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=1+-+exp%28-x%29+-+x%2F3+from+0+to+3 > > > > > > > > So an initial explosion of tickets is linearly reduced. > > > > Where in this curve is Scryer Prolog right now?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.prolog
csiph-web