Hi Cle, > I have now defined a small helper clause: > > (be for (@H (@H . @))) > (be for (@E (@ . @T)) (for @E @T))
Good idea! There is a rule 'lst' in "lib/pilog.l" which does the same. But 'for' is a much better name. Too bad! I didn't think about that. But now it is too late to change, 'lst' is used in too many places. > BTW: does Pilog feature tail call optimization like Prolog is supposed > to do? Unfortunately not. This is perhaps the reason why 'lst' is defined in a non-recursive way, calling the Lisp 'pop' function. Cheers, - Alex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe
