Hi Christophe,
> > Yes. This is an infinite recursion.
> ...
> So it seems it's not a syntax problem, but a conceptual one. I thought
> about @x and @y being the same person, but it shouldn't.
> Another hint?
I'm not a Prolog expert, but fact is that if the first three clauses
(be bigger (me her))
(be bigger (her son))
(be bigger (son daughter))
don't find a match, the fourth one
(be bigger (@x @y) (bigger @x @z) (bigger @z @y))
will always match and recurse infinitely.
I suspect this can be solved with a 'cut' (anybody out there who
knows?), but another solution would be to separate it into two
predicates:
(be isbigger (me her))
(be isbigger (her son))
(be isbigger (son daughter))
(be bigger (@x @y) (isbigger @x @y))
(be bigger (@x @y) (isbigger @x @z) (isbigger @z @y))
This gives:
: (? (bigger son daughter))
-> T
: (? (bigger me @A))
@A=her
@A=son
-> NIL
: (? (bigger @A @B))
@A=me @B=her
@A=her @B=son
@A=son @B=daughter
@A=me @B=son
@A=her @B=daughter
-> NIL
Cheers,
- Alex
--
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe
