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

Groups > comp.lang.prolog > #14857

My Citation Source : SWI-Prolog discourse (Was: Help! We need Boris the Loris, its all Fuzzy)

Show all headers | View raw

Hi,

Here my citation source:

https://swi-prolog.discourse.group/t/dicts-attribute-variables-and-cyclic-terms/9324

a) Turn bottom up PIPs into top-down ISO-2:

"Some discussions are going on in the PIP
working group related to synchronize (as a
lightweight standardize) some aspects
between Prolog systems."
- Jan W.

b) Clueless about SWI Var dicts Unification:

  - The syntax <atom>{<key>:<any>,...} for “structs”
     (i.e. where the name is the functor name);
  - The syntax <var>{<key>:<any>,...} for attributed vars.
- Julio Di Egidio

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> I big advantage of PoC derived only PIPs is a
> firm scope. Put PoC first, derive PIPs bottom up,
> and not the other way around use PIPs to spark
> 
> PoCs top down. A PoC would surely have a strong
> boundary scope. On the other hand these PIPs now
> have very weak fuzzy scopes.
> 
> They should put Boris the Loris into the
> steering board, he was very good when
> it came to community, and fuzzy versus
> 
> non-fuzzy. PoC based PIPs would probably
> have clean descriptions, and not this horror
> of Fuzzyness, where PIPs don't know their own Scope!!!
> 
> APPENDIX: META-DISCUSSION FOR THIS PIP
> What should be covered in this PIP?
> https://prolog-lang.org/ImplementersForum/0102-dicts.html
> 
> TBD: relate with current_struct/1 ECLiPSe?
> TBD: Discuss it
> TBD: useful for portray, translation to dynamic dicts (Jan)
> https://prolog-lang.org/ImplementersForum/0104-argnames.html
> 
> Such discussion would be find in the GitHub
> of a PoC, in case the PoC was developed
> with GitHub. Nowadays the GitHub could even
> 
> contain longwinding discussions, since GitHub
> offers discussions, its even not necessary
> to put discussions into issue tickets.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The PoC (Proof of Concept) aspect of a PIP
>> gets totally ignored. A PIP should be backed
>> by a small number of systems implementing
>>
>> the proposal. This has implications on what
>> topic can be chosen and what staff can work
>> on a PIP. Ask Boris the Loris for the semiotics
>>
>> of a PoC. Now PIPs have been perverted into
>> a forum to siphon Money into the Nowhere:
>>
>> - Some discussions are going on in the PIP
>>    working group related to synchronize (as a
>>    lightweight standardize) some aspects
>>    between Prolog systems.
>>
>> So PIP has become ISO-2. Its not anymore
>> a PIP, which would modularly maybe conflicting,
>> collect proposals. One could very easily
>>
>> jigsaw different dict efforts into separate
>> PIPs, when then work inheritly different.
>> Instead the goal is now "lightweight"
>>
>> standardizing. It shows in this mess:
>>
>> Dictionaries in Prolog (dynamic)
>> https://prolog-lang.org/ImplementersForum/0102-dicts.html
>>
>> Terms with named arguments (static dicts)
>> https://prolog-lang.org/ImplementersForum/0104-argnames.html
>>
>> Not a proposal at all. Just a big big mess.
>> Theretically when we assume that a PIP has
>> already PoCs, namely at least 2 Prolog systems
>>
>> that implement something.
>>
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Julio Di Egidio schrieb:
>>> On 27/09/2025 20:10, Mild Shock wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lets not forget that SWI-Prolog is now doomed
>>>> to have professional moron Julio Di Egidio
>>>> on board. Lets see what he says about dicts:
>>>>
>>>>   - The syntax <atom>{<key>:<any>,...} for “structs”
>>>>      (i.e. where the name is the functor name);
>>>>   - The syntax <var>{<key>:<any>,...} for attributed vars.
>>>>
>>>> LoL, I guess he has never heard of unification.
>>>
>>> You just mangle quotes and go out on an insane and
>>> abusive, even personally abusive, tangent: as usual.
>>>
>>> Welcome back to my kill-file, under the rubric
>>> stupidity is a moral defect.
>>>
>>> *Plonk*
>>>
>>> -Julio
>>>
>>
> 

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

Thread

How SWI-Prolog went down hills Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-09-27 19:50 +0200
  Re: Julio Di Egidio has never heard of unification (Was: How SWI-Prolog went down hills) Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-09-27 20:41 +0200
    The PoC (Proof of Concept) aspect of a PIP (Was: Julio Di Egidio has never heard of unification) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-09-28 08:15 +0200
      Help! We need Boris the Loris, its all Fuzzy (Was: The PoC (Proof of Concept) aspect of a PIP) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-09-28 08:24 +0200
        My Citation Source : SWI-Prolog discourse (Was: Help! We need Boris the Loris, its all Fuzzy) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-09-28 08:30 +0200
          SWI-Prolog as the gravity of all: Dream Big / Dream Standard (Was: My Citation Source : SWI-Prolog discourse) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-09-28 08:46 +0200
            How to make a tag variable an attributed variable (Was: SWI-Prolog as the gravity of all: Dream Big / Dream Standard) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-09-28 14:41 +0200
  Julio Di Egidio has never heard of unification (Was: How SWI-Prolog went down hills) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-09-27 20:10 +0200

csiph-web