extpilog.l maybe?

On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de> wrote:
> 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?
> Cheers,
> - Alex
> --
> UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe

Reply via email to