On 12 Jun 2015 12:12, "Matt Oliveri" <atma...@gmail.com> wrote: > I understand this. Remember we talked quite a bit about how you want > to use a stack of logic programming languages where each implements > the type system of the layer below. Or something like that. (And this > isn't type universes! You must not forget! ;) ) (The bottom layer > would be something like Haskell, I assume. But at any rate it would > not be another logic language.) So I have a rough idea of what you're > doing, I think, but practically do idea why you're doing it. Why the > fascination with type classes instead of real predicates?
I am not sure there is a difference? > Logic > programming instead of a real logic? I am not sure what you mean here? What is unreal about it? Firstly it is not Prolog, but has sound unification, a complete search strategy and I am working complete inference using negation elimination. Secondly the language is a sub-structural logic, in which you can construct other logics from axioms. I plan on implementing a searchable fragment of intuitionistic linear logic eventually. What is nice about the fragment of logic in horn clauses is that it is a valid fragment of intuitionistic, classical, linear, paraconsistent and possibly all logics. Keean.
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list bitc-dev@coyotos.org http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
