Hi Ambrose, I haven't been exposed to logic programming besides the examples David posted to the list. I found your tutorial very easy to follow and to read. I have two minor nit-picks.
1. I understand, that these o, e and some third, I think, suffixes are there historically. And for someone not used to logic programming they are as counter-intuitive as it can get: o == relati*o*n? o.O WTF. Maybe you can motivate a little why they are called like that historically? I personally need such explanations in case of such (on first sight) unrelated things. 2. After going through some more or less easy to follow and to understand examples, you dive into the interesting stuff: the definition of typedo - and loose me completely with c, e, t, k, m, v, s and ?r. I understand that c probably means context, e expression and t type. But trying to keep the meaning of exists, matche, geto and other funny names with strange suffixes in the cache *and* coping with one character locals is - at least for me - a bit much. Other than that: very nice tutorial indeed. :) Sincerely Meikel -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
