Hi Cle,

> calling 'unify' for instance outside a Pilog clause and get a SEGFAULT
> for that blasphemy. The latter could be detected by the interpreter,
> IMO. But this does not mean, I write a ticket against this "feature". I
> will learn to cope with it :-)))

No, you are right. It is not a good style in the case of 'unify'. The
runtime code of 'unify' could simply check some private globals, and
issue some error message. I found it probably not so important, as
'unify' is a kind of "system" predicate which makes only sense in other
predicates, and is not thought to be used in application programs.

> IMO! So perhaps you would state, that picoLisp "require" a defensive
> style? ;-)

Yes, indeed! :-)

> > name of such a library. I wouldn't use "misc/pilog.l", because in
> > "misc/" there are simple tests and arbitrary little projects, but no
> > libraries. It should better be some "lib/xxx.l" for Pilog extensions.
> >   
> Yeah, I think you are right! But what could be the name of such a lib?
> Until now, we have two such clauses gotten 'retract' and 'findall'.
> Those would be Prolog compatibility functions. But calling it "prolog.l"
> .. :-/

Why not? "lib/prolog.l" might be good. Or is it strange, as it breaks
with the name "pilog"? What do others think?

- Alex
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe

Reply via email to