>>> Mercury also has type classes and other Haskellisms, so if you're
>>> interested in "doing Prolog the Haskell way", you should definitely
>>> have a look at it.
>>
>> I have to admit that I am not very familiar with Mercury. But if you are
>> looking for "doing Prolog the Haskell way" you can a
On Tue, 26 May 2009, Jan Christiansen wrote:
Hi,
On 26.05.2009, at 21:24, Lauri Alanko wrote:
Mercury also has type classes and other Haskellisms, so if you're
interested in "doing Prolog the Haskell way", you should definitely
have a look at it.
I have to admit that I am not very familiar
Hi,
On 26.05.2009, at 21:24, Lauri Alanko wrote:
Mercury also has type classes and other Haskellisms, so if you're
interested in "doing Prolog the Haskell way", you should definitely
have a look at it.
I have to admit that I am not very familiar with Mercury. But if you
are looking for "doi
> Mercury also has type classes and other Haskellisms, so if you're
> interested in "doing Prolog the Haskell way", you should definitely
> have a look at it.
Thanks. I'll have a look.
(I also just found Mercury on my own: After I posed my original
question, I tried another web search, and found
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 09:10:10PM +0200, Matthias Görgens wrote:
> The model in Prolog, however, looks more like the model used in most
> strict functional languages. It uses impure predicates to affect the
> outside world. Do you know of any attempt to do for logic programming
> what Monads did
There are a number of ways to marry purely functional programming
languages with IO. To name just two possibilities: Clean uses linear
types, threading exactly one "World" through functions, Haskell uses
Monads.
The model in Prolog, however, looks more like the model used in most
strict functiona
