Mark <markaddle...@gmail.com> writes:
> I can't speak to the duplicates issue, though I know it's common in
> logic-based solutions. In specific cases, I suspect the problem could
> be solved (or ameliorated) by tabling but I'm just getting into logic
> programming so I'm not too sure about that.
Well, that's highly likely a programming error on my side. There is an
infinite number of ways to get from A to B in
A <-> X <-> Y <-> B
I can go clearly go directly A, X, Y, B, but also A, X, Y, X, Y, B, and
so forth. Nothing in my `connected' relation hinders it for moving back
and forth as often as it wants.
> Overall, your use case sounds very similar to mine. I've thought that
> the marriage of an inference engine and a graph database would yield a
> very powerful tool.
Ditto. ;-)
> I'm looking forward to an abstraction layer that lets me bind any data
> store and, even more powerfully, multiple data stores to the logic
> engine.
Yeah, same for me. So instead of defining relations with defrel and
adding facts, which is basically duplicating the information I already
have, I'd like to provide a direct implementation that core.logic can
use if that's possible.
Bye,
Tassilo
--
(What the world needs (I think) is not
(a Lisp (with fewer parentheses))
but (an English (with more.)))
Brian Hayes, http://tinyurl.com/3y9l2kf
--
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
