Hi Doug,
> Alex, would it be possible to give pilog an and/2 rule similar to the
> or/2 rule that pilog has now? Sometimes refactoring pilog around the
> lack of an and/2 is a pain. Here's an example, where a rule has a kind
> of a logical expression (with prolog backup):
As I wrote in my last mail, AND is implicit anyway.
> (be holds (@A @S) (or
> (and
> (restoreSitArg @A @S @F)
> (@ solve (list (-> @F))))
> (and
> (not (restoreSitArg @A @S @F))
> (isAtom @A)
> (@ solve (list (-> @A))) ) ) )
So this should be written as
(be holds (@A @S)
(or
((restoreSitArg @A @S @F) (@ solve (list (-> @F))))
((not (restoreSitArg @A @S @F)) (isAtom @A) (@ solve (list (-> @A)))) )
)
> My solution so far is to make the parts of the conjunction be separate rules
> to get the desired backtracking:
>
> (be holds (@A @S) (or
> ((holdsRestoreSitArg @A @S @F)
> (holdsNotRestoreSitArg @A @S @F))))
This 'or' has no effect, as it has only a single argument.
Cheers,
- Alex
--
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
