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

Groups > comp.lang.prolog > #12143 > unrolled thread

France is the Fire Nation of Prolog

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.prolog

Contents

  France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 06:41 -0700
    Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 06:48 -0700
      Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-07-22 03:51 -0700
        Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-07-22 03:53 -0700
          Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 03:32 -0700
            Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 03:46 -0700
              Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-07-28 02:19 -0700
                Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-07-28 02:29 -0700
                  Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-07-28 02:42 -0700
                    Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-10-26 00:57 -0700
                      Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-10-26 00:58 -0700
                        Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-10-26 00:59 -0700
                          Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-11-03 07:47 -0700
                            Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-11-03 07:48 -0700
                              Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-11-04 00:49 -0700
                                Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-11-04 00:50 -0700
                                  Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-11-06 12:07 -0700
                                    Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-11-06 12:08 -0700
                                      Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-11-06 12:09 -0700
                                        Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-11-10 03:56 -0800
                                          Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-11-10 03:58 -0800
                                            Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-11-15 18:46 -0800
                                              Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-11-15 18:54 -0800
                                                Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-11-25 04:25 -0800
                                                  Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-11-28 07:22 -0800
                                                    Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-11-28 07:29 -0800
                                                      Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-11-28 11:31 -0800
                                                        Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-11-28 15:20 -0800
                                                          Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-11-28 15:24 -0800
                                                        Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-11-30 06:07 -0800
                                                          Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-12-15 04:42 -0800
                                                            Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-12-17 08:59 -0800
                                                              Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-12-28 10:26 -0800
                                                                Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-12-29 14:46 -0800
                                                                  Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2021-12-30 09:56 +0100
                                                                    Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-12-30 01:06 -0800
                                                                      Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2021-12-30 02:48 -0800
                                                                        Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2021-12-30 04:38 -0800
    Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2021-12-31 01:11 +0100
      Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-01 03:30 -0800
        Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-02 15:28 -0800
          Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-04 02:49 -0800
            Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-04 03:28 -0800
              Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-04 03:46 -0800
                Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-08 05:06 -0800
                  Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-08 07:57 -0800
                    Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-09 00:30 -0800
                      Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-09 00:58 -0800
                        Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-16 17:58 -0800
                          Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-18 07:57 -0800
                            Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-20 06:03 -0800
                              Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-20 06:06 -0800
                                Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-22 09:52 -0800
                              Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-23 13:02 -0800
    Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2022-01-22 18:58 +0100
      Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2022-01-23 01:32 +0100
        Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-23 07:54 -0800
          Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-24 02:38 -0800
            Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-30 12:10 -0800
              Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-30 12:15 -0800
                Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-30 12:21 -0800
                  Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-02-08 03:28 -0800
                    Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-02-10 08:27 -0800
                      Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-02-10 08:29 -0800
                        Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 05:02 -0800
                          Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 03:59 -0800
                            Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 09:35 -0800
                              Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 10:42 -0800
                                Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-09 01:12 -0700
                                  Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-09 01:36 -0700
                                    Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-09 01:49 -0700
                                      Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-14 09:21 -0700
                                        Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-14 09:25 -0700
                                          Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-14 09:38 -0700
                                            Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-01-12 05:16 -0800
                                              Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-01-12 05:17 -0800
                                                Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-02-08 11:25 -0800
                                                  Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-02-14 01:46 -0800
                                                    Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-02-14 01:49 -0800
                                                      Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-02-14 02:27 -0800
                                                        Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-02-14 05:55 -0800
                                                          Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-02-16 13:30 -0800
                                                            Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-02-16 15:39 -0800
                                                              Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-02-20 01:28 -0800
                                                                Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-02-20 01:30 -0800
                                                                  Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-10-10 15:54 -0700
                                                                    Re: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-10-10 16:08 -0700
                                                                    Why cant Scryer Prolog parse this? (Was: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-01 15:22 +0200
                                                                      Re: Why cant Scryer Prolog parse this? (Was: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-01 16:03 +0200
                                                                        Re: Why cant Scryer Prolog parse this? (Was: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-01 16:29 +0200
                                                                          Re: Why cant Scryer Prolog parse this? (Was: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-01 19:05 +0200

Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]

#13444

Adding failure handling to it, wouldn’t be extremly difficult,
but maybe this would slow it down a little bit? Something
along the following, for the version without shield/1:

open(Path, read, Input),
(catch(read_term(Input, Term, Options), Error,
        (close(Input),throw(Error))) -> close(Input)
 ;      close(Input))

Maybe a good name for this less sophisticated setup_call_cleanup/3
would be simply setup_once_cleanup/3. The once in the name
would relate to the already existing once/1 predicate and indicate that

the call is only called once. Which happens for example if the above
if-then-else wrapper is used. In the original Logtalk find, the cleanup
might not be called or multiple times called, since there is no

if-then-else wrapping. A new meta predicate setup_once_cleanup/3
could provide a more cleaner solution.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 14. Februar 2023 um 11:27:08 UTC+1:
> Here is a proposal how to extend the Logtalk idiom by atomicity: 
> 
> shield( 
> open(Path, read, Input), 
> catch(unshield(read_term(Input, Term, Options)), Error, 
> (close(Input),throw(Error))), 
> close(Input)). 
> 
> shield/1 is a new meta predicate inspired by Python: 
> 
> awaitable asyncio.shield(aw ) 
> Protect an awaitable object from being cancelled. 
> https://docs.python.org/3/library/asyncio-task.html#shielding-from-cancellation 
> 
> I guess it corresponds to sig_atomic/1 in SWI-Prolog and sys_atomic/1 
> in formerly Jekejeke Prolog. unshield/1 reverts shield/1, I didn’t find it yet 
> in some existing Prolog system. Disclaimer: The above idea of a 
> 
> shielded Logtalk idiom is not yet practically tested.
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 14. Februar 2023 um 10:49:01 UTC+1: 
> > Scryer Prolog isn't that lucky. Their setup_call_cleanup/3 
> > has some meta predicate issue. And their catch/3 is utterly slow. 
> > 
> > /* Scryer Prolog 0.9.1 */ 
> > ?- time((between(1,500000,_), findall2(X, (X=1;X=2), L), fail; true)). 
> > % CPU time: 0.000s 
> > error(existence_error(procedure,'$destroy_findall2_bag'/0),'$destroy_findall2_bag'/0). 
> > ?- time((between(1,500000,_), findall3(X, (X=1;X=2), L), fail; true)). 
> > % CPU time: 32.102s 
> > true. 
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 14. Februar 2023 um 10:46:02 UTC+1: 
> > > Interesting replacement of setup_call_cleanup/3: 
> > > 
> > > open(Path, read, Input), 
> > > catch(read_term(Input, Term, Options), Error, 
> > > (close(Input),throw(Error))), 
> > > close(Input) 
> > > https://github.com/LogtalkDotOrg/logtalk3/blob/master/library/term_io/term_io.lgt 
> > > 
> > > Can we use this for something? 
> > > 
> > > Here is some testing, with dry implementation of the bag: 
> > > 
> > > /* SWI-Prolog 9.1.4 */ 
> > > 
> > > /* N215 Solution */ 
> > > ?- time((between(1,500000,_), findall2(X, (X=1;X=2), L), fail; true)). 
> > > % 7,000,000 inferences, 0.875 CPU in 0.871 seconds (100% CPU, 8000000 Lips) 
> > > true. 
> > > 
> > > /* Logtalk Idiom */ 
> > > ?- time((between(1,500000,_), findall3(X, (X=1;X=2), L), fail; true)). 
> > > % 6,000,000 inferences, 0.500 CPU in 0.497 seconds (101% CPU, 12000000 Lips) 
> > > true.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13446

Woa! My new setup_once_cleanup/3, which adopts the Logtalk idiom,
does something totally different, it overrides the primary exception.
This is incompatible with the usual setup_call_cleanup/3:

Logtalk idiom as is:

?- once_cleanup(true, throw(foo), throw(bar)).
Unknown exception: bar

?- catch(once_cleanup(true, throw(foo), throw(bar)), E, true).
E = bar.

Now compare with what some new Prolog systems do:

/* Trealla Prolog */
?- call_cleanup(throw(foo), throw(bar)).
   throw(foo).

/* Scryer Prolog */
?- call_cleanup(throw(foo), throw(bar)).
   throw(foo).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13447

Now I get a little disagreement:

/* Trealla Prolog */
?- call_cleanup(throw(foo), fail).
   false.

/* Scryer Prolog */
?- call_cleanup(throw(foo), fail).
   throw(foo).

Which one is the desired behaviour?

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 16. Februar 2023 um 22:30:43 UTC+1:
> Woa! My new setup_once_cleanup/3, which adopts the Logtalk idiom, 
> does something totally different, it overrides the primary exception. 
> This is incompatible with the usual setup_call_cleanup/3: 
> 
> Logtalk idiom as is: 
> 
> ?- once_cleanup(true, throw(foo), throw(bar)). 
> Unknown exception: bar 
> 
> ?- catch(once_cleanup(true, throw(foo), throw(bar)), E, true). 
> E = bar. 
> 
> Now compare with what some new Prolog systems do: 
> 
> /* Trealla Prolog */ 
> ?- call_cleanup(throw(foo), throw(bar)). 
> throw(foo). 
> 
> /* Scryer Prolog */ 
> ?- call_cleanup(throw(foo), throw(bar)). 
> throw(foo).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13454

Now I found two more cases where I could
use the new setup_once_cleanup/3. These
correspond to the following in SWI-Prolog:

with_mutex/2:
The goal argument is onced. So an implementation
with setup_call_cleanup/3 is overkill, can be as well
implemented with setup_once_cleanup/3. I saw that 
with_mutex/2 is implemented natively in SWI-Prolog
using callProlog, which I guess can be used to create 
a setup_once_cleanup/3 behaviour.

Pitty the thingy isn’t named once_with_mutex/2. In
shared lazy tabling I have a strange case for a
setup_call_cleanup/3 based mutex handling. I guess I
will rename it to call_with_mutex/2, and also introduce a
once_with_mutex/2, and see to it that shared eager
tabling uses the new setup_once_cleanup/3. This is
a low priority long term change.

call_with_time_limit/2:
The goal argument here is onced as well. Pitty the
thingy isn’t name once_with_time_limit/2. I have a meta
predicate time_out/2 based on setup_call_cleanup/3 which
I can now migrate to setup_once_cleanup/3. But maybe I
will also rename it to once_with_time_limit/2. Oh the horror!
This is a high priority short term change.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13455

Exception Chaining:
I am planning to nevertheless introduce exception chaining,
adopting some new ideas from Python. In Python a catch of
a chained exception only matches the head of the chained
exception. This is an effect of object orientation, since the chain
is just a field __context__ or something, and the matching is
based on the class of the exception.

Maybe can recreate a similar Prolog catch/3, that matches
either an unchained exception or then the head of chained
exception. This is medium priority. Python has a further feature
which could be adopted, the catch/3 handler, if an exception is
thrown there, it is automatically chained with the current exception.
This is probably too complicated, no plan to adopt this feature.

The automatic chaining will probably only be added to
setup_once_cleanup/3 and not to catch/3. The reason is there is
some constraint logic programming code that uses catch/3 to
return a result in branch and bound search. You find this also in
Markus Triskas code, so making catch/3 too heavy slows down
the constraint logic programming, unless this code would go
for the more lower level sys_trap/3.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Montag, 20. Februar 2023 um 10:28:36 UTC+1:
> Now I found two more cases where I could 
> use the new setup_once_cleanup/3. These 
> correspond to the following in SWI-Prolog: 
> 
> with_mutex/2: 
> The goal argument is onced. So an implementation 
> with setup_call_cleanup/3 is overkill, can be as well 
> implemented with setup_once_cleanup/3. I saw that 
> with_mutex/2 is implemented natively in SWI-Prolog 
> using callProlog, which I guess can be used to create 
> a setup_once_cleanup/3 behaviour. 
> 
> Pitty the thingy isn’t named once_with_mutex/2. In 
> shared lazy tabling I have a strange case for a 
> setup_call_cleanup/3 based mutex handling. I guess I 
> will rename it to call_with_mutex/2, and also introduce a 
> once_with_mutex/2, and see to it that shared eager 
> tabling uses the new setup_once_cleanup/3. This is 
> a low priority long term change. 
> 
> call_with_time_limit/2: 
> The goal argument here is onced as well. Pitty the 
> thingy isn’t name once_with_time_limit/2. I have a meta 
> predicate time_out/2 based on setup_call_cleanup/3 which 
> I can now migrate to setup_once_cleanup/3. But maybe I 
> will also rename it to once_with_time_limit/2. Oh the horror! 
> This is a high priority short term change.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13766

Is Canada also France? Seems I am not the only one who got
into struggle with Logtalk sooner or later. LoL

How its started:
Ticket raised by me Aug 9, 2021 (when I was "ghost")
Feature request flag dialect, maybe version and version_data
https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/issues/1017

How its going:
Commit by pmoura last week 
Delete Scryer Prolog support due to this system refusal to 
support the de facto standard `version_data` flag
https://github.com/LogtalkDotOrg/logtalk3/commit/d93883c5a8b014af09bd0e11439eaff30e1c1a5c

What happened?

LoL

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13767

version_data turned out quite useful. I am currently using
it across Dogelog Player to also return the release date:

?- current_prolog_flag(version_data, X).
X = dogelog(1, 1, 3, [date(1696761013577)]).

The date is currenty a long integer time stamp. I am not
using date/3 or datetime/6 compounds for time.

Mild Shock schrieb am Mittwoch, 11. Oktober 2023 um 00:54:43 UTC+2:
> Is Canada also France? Seems I am not the only one who got 
> into struggle with Logtalk sooner or later. LoL 
> 
> How its started: 
> Ticket raised by me Aug 9, 2021 (when I was "ghost") 
> Feature request flag dialect, maybe version and version_data 
> https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/issues/1017 
> 
> How its going: 
> Commit by pmoura last week 
> Delete Scryer Prolog support due to this system refusal to 
> support the de facto standard `version_data` flag 
> https://github.com/LogtalkDotOrg/logtalk3/commit/d93883c5a8b014af09bd0e11439eaff30e1c1a5c 
> 
> What happened? 
> 
> LoL

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14168 — Why cant Scryer Prolog parse this? (Was: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog)

Hi,

Why cant Scryer Prolog parse this?

scryer-prolog$ target/release/scryer-prolog -v
v0.9.4-165-g12a61cdf

scryer-prolog$ target/release/scryer-prolog

?- current_op(X, Y, *).
    X = 400, Y = yfx.

?- X = (* = *).
    error(syntax_error(incomplete_reduction),read_term/3:1).

On the other hand Trealla Prolog has no problem:

trealla$ ./tpl -v
Trealla Prolog (c) Infradig 2020-2024, v2.55.31

trealla$ ./tpl
?- current_op(X, Y, *).
    X = 400, Y = yfx.

?- X = (* = *).
    X = ((*)=(*)).

What LEX / YACC did they use? Holy cow!

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Is Canada also France? Seems I am not the only one who got
> into struggle with Logtalk sooner or later. LoL
> 
> How its started:
> Ticket raised by me Aug 9, 2021 (when I was "ghost")
> Feature request flag dialect, maybe version and version_data
> https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/issues/1017
> 
> How its going:
> Commit by pmoura last week
> Delete Scryer Prolog support due to this system refusal to
> support the de facto standard `version_data` flag
> https://github.com/LogtalkDotOrg/logtalk3/commit/d93883c5a8b014af09bd0e11439eaff30e1c1a5c
> 
> What happened?
> 
> LoL
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14169 — Re: Why cant Scryer Prolog parse this? (Was: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog)

Tau Prolog can do it:

https://github.com/tau-prolog/tau-prolog/issues/286

But Tau Prolog is dead now, or hibernating for
more than 12 months already. So the more lenient
behaviour has already been ossified in this Prolog system.

Another argument not in favor, it also makes parsing
more non-monotonic, if you introduce the "shall" condition,
because its a negative parsing condition.
```
$ target/release/scryer-prolog
?- X = (table = table).
    X = (table=table).

?- use_module(library(tabling)).
    true.

?- X = (table = table).
    error(syntax_error(incomplete_reduction),read_term/3:1).
```
Maybe introducing more than rather less operator table
dependencies in a grammar is always a mistake? A further
use case is (!)/1 in TPTP syntax.

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Why cant Scryer Prolog parse this?
> 
> scryer-prolog$ target/release/scryer-prolog -v
> v0.9.4-165-g12a61cdf
> 
> scryer-prolog$ target/release/scryer-prolog
> 
> ?- current_op(X, Y, *).
>     X = 400, Y = yfx.
> 
> ?- X = (* = *).
>     error(syntax_error(incomplete_reduction),read_term/3:1).
> 
> On the other hand Trealla Prolog has no problem:
> 
> trealla$ ./tpl -v
> Trealla Prolog (c) Infradig 2020-2024, v2.55.31
> 
> trealla$ ./tpl
> ?- current_op(X, Y, *).
>     X = 400, Y = yfx.
> 
> ?- X = (* = *).
>     X = ((*)=(*)).
> 
> What LEX / YACC did they use? Holy cow!
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Is Canada also France? Seems I am not the only one who got
>> into struggle with Logtalk sooner or later. LoL
>>
>> How its started:
>> Ticket raised by me Aug 9, 2021 (when I was "ghost")
>> Feature request flag dialect, maybe version and version_data
>> https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/issues/1017
>>
>> How its going:
>> Commit by pmoura last week
>> Delete Scryer Prolog support due to this system refusal to
>> support the de facto standard `version_data` flag
>> https://github.com/LogtalkDotOrg/logtalk3/commit/d93883c5a8b014af09bd0e11439eaff30e1c1a5c 
>>
>>
>> What happened?
>>
>> LoL
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14170 — Re: Why cant Scryer Prolog parse this? (Was: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog)

Ok, my bad, prefix (table) is probably
not the best example. This example works better:

scryer-prolog$ target/release/scryer-prolog
?- X = (#\/ = #\/).
    X = (#\/ = #\/).
?- use_module(library(clpz)).
    true.
?- X = (#\/ = #\/).
    error(syntax_error(incomplete_reduction),read_term/3:1).

versus:

trealla$ ./tpl
?- X = (#\/ = #\/).
    X = (#\/ = #\/) .
?- use_module(library(clpz)).
    true.
?- X = (#\/ = #\/).
    X = ((#\/)=(#\/)).

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Tau Prolog can do it:
> 
> https://github.com/tau-prolog/tau-prolog/issues/286
> 
> But Tau Prolog is dead now, or hibernating for
> more than 12 months already. So the more lenient
> behaviour has already been ossified in this Prolog system.
> 
> Another argument not in favor, it also makes parsing
> more non-monotonic, if you introduce the "shall" condition,
> because its a negative parsing condition.
> ```
> $ target/release/scryer-prolog
> ?- X = (table = table).
>     X = (table=table).
> 
> ?- use_module(library(tabling)).
>     true.
> 
> ?- X = (table = table).
>     error(syntax_error(incomplete_reduction),read_term/3:1).
> ```
> Maybe introducing more than rather less operator table
> dependencies in a grammar is always a mistake? A further
> use case is (!)/1 in TPTP syntax.
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Why cant Scryer Prolog parse this?
>>
>> scryer-prolog$ target/release/scryer-prolog -v
>> v0.9.4-165-g12a61cdf
>>
>> scryer-prolog$ target/release/scryer-prolog
>>
>> ?- current_op(X, Y, *).
>>     X = 400, Y = yfx.
>>
>> ?- X = (* = *).
>>     error(syntax_error(incomplete_reduction),read_term/3:1).
>>
>> On the other hand Trealla Prolog has no problem:
>>
>> trealla$ ./tpl -v
>> Trealla Prolog (c) Infradig 2020-2024, v2.55.31
>>
>> trealla$ ./tpl
>> ?- current_op(X, Y, *).
>>     X = 400, Y = yfx.
>>
>> ?- X = (* = *).
>>     X = ((*)=(*)).
>>
>> What LEX / YACC did they use? Holy cow!
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Is Canada also France? Seems I am not the only one who got
>>> into struggle with Logtalk sooner or later. LoL
>>>
>>> How its started:
>>> Ticket raised by me Aug 9, 2021 (when I was "ghost")
>>> Feature request flag dialect, maybe version and version_data
>>> https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/issues/1017
>>>
>>> How its going:
>>> Commit by pmoura last week
>>> Delete Scryer Prolog support due to this system refusal to
>>> support the de facto standard `version_data` flag
>>> https://github.com/LogtalkDotOrg/logtalk3/commit/d93883c5a8b014af09bd0e11439eaff30e1c1a5c 
>>>
>>>
>>> What happened?
>>>
>>> LoL
>>>
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14172 — Re: Why cant Scryer Prolog parse this? (Was: France is the Fire Nation of Prolog)

Interstingly SICStus Prolog, which is the sequel
to Quintus, does not impose the same restriction
as Scryer Prolog:

/* SICStus 4.9.0 */
| ?- current_op(X, Y, *).
X = 400,
Y = yfx ? ;
no

| ?- X = (* = *).
X = ((*)=(*)) ?
yes

So what went wrong in the ISO standard. There are so
many idiosyncratic things in the ISO standard, that
are only found in GNU Prolog. So they took GNU Prolog

as the template for the language syntax and ignored
all other Prolog systems? Its not 100% true. SICStus
Prolog has also some idiosyncratic things like:

/* SICStus 4.9.0 */
| ?- X = (- 1), write_canonical(X), nl.
-1
X = -1 ?

| ?- X = (-1), write_canonical(X), nl.
-1
X = -1 ?

Compare to SWI-Prolog:

/* SWI-Prolog 9.3.8 */
?- X = (- 1), write_canonical(X), nl.
-(1)
X = - 1.

?- X = (-1), write_canonical(X), nl.
-1
X = -1.

I like the SWI-Prolog behaviour better...

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Ok, my bad, prefix (table) is probably
> not the best example. This example works better:
> 
> scryer-prolog$ target/release/scryer-prolog
> ?- X = (#\/ = #\/).
>     X = (#\/ = #\/).
> ?- use_module(library(clpz)).
>     true.
> ?- X = (#\/ = #\/).
>     error(syntax_error(incomplete_reduction),read_term/3:1).
> 
> versus:
> 
> trealla$ ./tpl
> ?- X = (#\/ = #\/).
>     X = (#\/ = #\/) .
> ?- use_module(library(clpz)).
>     true.
> ?- X = (#\/ = #\/).
>     X = ((#\/)=(#\/)).
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Tau Prolog can do it:
>>
>> https://github.com/tau-prolog/tau-prolog/issues/286
>>
>> But Tau Prolog is dead now, or hibernating for
>> more than 12 months already. So the more lenient
>> behaviour has already been ossified in this Prolog system.
>>
>> Another argument not in favor, it also makes parsing
>> more non-monotonic, if you introduce the "shall" condition,
>> because its a negative parsing condition.
>> ```
>> $ target/release/scryer-prolog
>> ?- X = (table = table).
>>     X = (table=table).
>>
>> ?- use_module(library(tabling)).
>>     true.
>>
>> ?- X = (table = table).
>>     error(syntax_error(incomplete_reduction),read_term/3:1).
>> ```
>> Maybe introducing more than rather less operator table
>> dependencies in a grammar is always a mistake? A further
>> use case is (!)/1 in TPTP syntax.
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Why cant Scryer Prolog parse this?
>>>
>>> scryer-prolog$ target/release/scryer-prolog -v
>>> v0.9.4-165-g12a61cdf
>>>
>>> scryer-prolog$ target/release/scryer-prolog
>>>
>>> ?- current_op(X, Y, *).
>>>     X = 400, Y = yfx.
>>>
>>> ?- X = (* = *).
>>>     error(syntax_error(incomplete_reduction),read_term/3:1).
>>>
>>> On the other hand Trealla Prolog has no problem:
>>>
>>> trealla$ ./tpl -v
>>> Trealla Prolog (c) Infradig 2020-2024, v2.55.31
>>>
>>> trealla$ ./tpl
>>> ?- current_op(X, Y, *).
>>>     X = 400, Y = yfx.
>>>
>>> ?- X = (* = *).
>>>     X = ((*)=(*)).
>>>
>>> What LEX / YACC did they use? Holy cow!
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>> Is Canada also France? Seems I am not the only one who got
>>>> into struggle with Logtalk sooner or later. LoL
>>>>
>>>> How its started:
>>>> Ticket raised by me Aug 9, 2021 (when I was "ghost")
>>>> Feature request flag dialect, maybe version and version_data
>>>> https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/issues/1017
>>>>
>>>> How its going:
>>>> Commit by pmoura last week
>>>> Delete Scryer Prolog support due to this system refusal to
>>>> support the de facto standard `version_data` flag
>>>> https://github.com/LogtalkDotOrg/logtalk3/commit/d93883c5a8b014af09bd0e11439eaff30e1c1a5c 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What happened?
>>>>
>>>> LoL
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.prolog

csiph-web