On 03/14/2012 08:00 PM, David Nolen wrote:
Thanks to Edmund Jackson we have a new primer for core.logic:
https://github.com/clojure/core.logic/wiki/A-Core.logic-Primer
Feedback appreciated!
Hi!
Does a run* expression evaluate to only the query-variable, while lvars
introduced with fresh
Hi Thorsten,
Thanks for reading and the great feedback. In response, yes lvars
introduced by fresh stay 'inside' the run* which only returns the query
lvar. Your other comments are 100% correct and I will update the document
to reflect them.
Thanks again,
Edmund
On Thursday, 15 March
This primer is a good introduction to core.logic operators. What I think is
missing is a tutorial that answers these questions:
What type of problems does core.logic excel at solving?
How do you solve problems with core.logic?
How does it enable simplicity? (Rich said in simple made easy that
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Milton Silva milton...@gmail.com wrote:
This primer is a good introduction to core.logic operators. What I think
is missing is a tutorial that answers these questions:
What type of problems does core.logic excel at solving?
How do you solve problems with
amazing stuff guys!!!
Jim
On 14/03/12 19:00, David Nolen wrote:
Thanks to Edmund Jackson we have a new primer for core.logic:
https://github.com/clojure/core.logic/wiki/A-Core.logic-Primer
Feedback appreciated!
David
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Could this tutorial explain the foremost question people have when seeing
core.logic: why is o appened to the names of all those functions?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Clojure group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Daniel Gagnon redalas...@gmail.comwrote:
Could this tutorial explain the foremost question people have when seeing
core.logic: why is o appened to the names of all those functions?
It's a convention from The Reasoned Schemer. It's just an easy way to
David Nolen dnolen.li...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Daniel Gagnon redalas...@gmail.com
wrote:
Could this tutorial explain the foremost question people have
when seeing core.logic: why is o appened to the names of all
those functions?
It's a convention
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Phil Hagelberg p...@hagelb.org wrote:
David Nolen dnolen.li...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Daniel Gagnon redalas...@gmail.com
wrote:
Could this tutorial explain the foremost question people have
when seeing core.logic:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:49 AM, David Nolen dnolen.li...@gmail.com wrote:
It's a convention from The Reasoned Schemer. It's just an easy way to
differentiate goals from regular functions.
What's the rationale in TRS for that? (and conde) Like Phil (and no
doubt others) it seems an odd
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Sean Corfield seancorfi...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:49 AM, David Nolen dnolen.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
It's a convention from The Reasoned Schemer. It's just an easy way to
differentiate goals from regular functions.
What's the rationale
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Sean Corfield seancorfi...@gmail.comwrote:
In other words, you want access to both unqualified cons and conso,
rest and resto etc in the same code? Yet core.logic overrides == and
so you either have to namespace that or exclude it (the examples seem
to do the
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:21 PM, David Nolen dnolen.li...@gmail.com wrote:
It has nothing to do w/ qualified or not qualified, namespaces or anything
else. In some programs you may want to freely mix functions and relations.
But that's what namespaces are for in Clojure, yes?
Seems like this
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:28 PM, David Nolen dnolen.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Sean Corfield seancorfi...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:21 PM, David Nolen dnolen.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
It has nothing to do w/ qualified or not qualified, namespaces
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 1:28 PM, David Nolen dnolen.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Sean Corfield seancorfi...@gmail.com
wrote:
(require '[clojure.core.logic :as ?])
(?/run [q] ;; instead of run*
(?/cons 1 q (cons 1 [2 3]))) ;; instead of (conso 1 q (cons 1 [2 3]))
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Sean Corfield seancorfi...@gmail.com wrote:
And why is it run* and not run?
There is run, but `run` takes an extra argument `n` and will solve for
only `n` results while `run*` solves for all.
Also, core.logic is essentially a faithful port of miniKanren and
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Baishampayan Ghose b.gh...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Sean Corfield seancorfi...@gmail.com
wrote:
And why is it run* and not run?
There is run, but `run` takes an extra argument `n` and will solve for
only `n` results while `run*`
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Baishampayan Ghose b.gh...@gmail.com wrote:
There is run, but `run` takes an extra argument `n` and will solve for
only `n` results while `run*` solves for all.
Ah, OK. That makes sense. Perhaps that could be added to the primer?
(just curious: why not run-all?)
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Sean Corfield seancorfi...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Baishampayan Ghose b.gh...@gmail.com
wrote:
There is run, but `run` takes an extra argument `n` and will solve for
only `n` results while `run*` solves for all.
Ah, OK. That makes
Righto, I'll add this to the discussion.
On Thursday, 15 March 2012 21:53:51 UTC, David Nolen wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Sean Corfield seancorfi...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Baishampayan Ghose b.gh...@gmail.com
wrote:
There is run, but `run` takes an
Thanks to Edmund Jackson we have a new primer for core.logic:
https://github.com/clojure/core.logic/wiki/A-Core.logic-Primer
Feedback appreciated!
David
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Clojure group.
To post to this group, send email to
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 3:00 PM, David Nolen dnolen.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks to Edmund Jackson we have a new primer for core.logic:
https://github.com/clojure/core.logic/wiki/A-Core.logic-Primer
Feedback appreciated!
David
It's pretty good and I think it's very accessible. If you
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Daniel Gagnon redalas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 3:00 PM, David Nolen dnolen.li...@gmail.comwrote:
Thanks to Edmund Jackson we have a new primer for core.logic:
https://github.com/clojure/core.logic/wiki/A-Core.logic-Primer
Feedback
2012/3/14 David Nolen dnolen.li...@gmail.com
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Daniel Gagnon redalas...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 3:00 PM, David Nolen dnolen.li...@gmail.comwrote:
Thanks to Edmund Jackson we have a new primer for core.logic:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Linus Ericsson
oscarlinuserics...@gmail.com wrote:
:dependencies [[org.clojure/clojure 1.3.0]
[core.logic 0.6.1-SNAPSHOT]]
You want: [org.clojure/core.logic 0.6.7]
http://dev.clojure.org/display/design/Where+Did+Clojure.Contrib+Go has
a link to Maven Central
On Wednesday, March 14, 2012, Dan wrote:
David Nolen wrote:
Thanks to Edmund Jackson we have a new primer for core.logic:
https://github.com/clojure/core.logic/wiki/A-Core.logic-Primer
[...] I think you should say a word about prolog and mention that unlike
it core.logic isn't turing
Dan, you probably read that recently about Datalog, while you were
reviewing Datomic. Ain't that right? :)
I didn't check out Datomic yet. I'll do that soon.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Clojure group.
To post to this group, send email to
27 matches
Mail list logo
