Thanks Alex!!!

We have golog in pilog.  Er, I think :-)  If not we're pretty dang close.   
Still trying to get the simple elevator example going from "Knowledge in 
Action" as a test.  http://www.cs.toronto.edu/cogrobo/kia/simpleElevator 
 http://books.google.com/books?q=%22proc%28goFloor%22  etc.

After golog, maybe indigolog ? 

With miniPicoLisp at 100 to 150k (depending on platform, build options, etc.) 
and with pilog + golog loaded, it has to be the smallest footprint golog (with 
a respectable prolog and lisp under the hood), around.  Might be right for 
embedded systems, I'm thinking. 

Cheers,

Doug









--- On Thu, 6/30/11, Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de> wrote:

> From: Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de>
> Subject: Re: pilog: unification in variables that are clauses
> To: picolisp@software-lab.de
> Date: Thursday, June 30, 2011, 11:55 PM
> Hi Doug,
> 
> the following works:
> 
>    (be a (3))
> 
>    (be foo @C
>       (2 -> @C) )
> 
> 
>    : (? (foo (a @Z)))
>     @Z=3           
>     
>    -> NIL
> 
> I spied what 'call/1' is doing ;-) That number magic with
> '2' is a bit
> tricky, I'm never sure what level to pick. Basically it
> tells the
> interpreter with which level it should unify (here, the
> level outside of
> 'foo').
> 
> 
> Actually, you could also use
> 
>    (be foo (@C)
>       (2 cons (-> @C)) )
> 
> but this needs additional consing for the expression to
> match, so I
> would avoid it. It depends on what else is done with '@C'.
> 
> Cheers,
> - Alex
> -- 
> UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
>
--
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Reply via email to