On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:25:35AM +0800, cle wrote: > Here the predicate aT/1 may be rewritten using the ';' operator as in > bT/1. Now I have found, that Pilog offer a 'or' rule. But it seems, this > does not resemble ';' of Prolog. Suppose the Pilog translation of the > code above: > ... > (be bT (@N) > (or (t1 @N) (t2 @N))) > So I would like to ask, if 'or' works as intended or if there is a bug?
'or' takes not singular expressions, but whole clause bodies in each argument, to allow the implicit 'and' of Prolog. Thus, an additional level of parentheses is required. A working version would be: (be bT (@N) (or ((t1 @N)) ((t2 @N))) ) Cheers, - Alex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe