On 11/4/10 6:32 PM, Gregory Crosswhite wrote:
On 11/04/2010 03:06 PM, Dan Doel wrote:
Implementing type inference can be very easy in a logic language,
because most
of the work in a non-logic language is implementing unification:
[...]
Cool! Thank you very much; that is exactly the kind of
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 06:06:40PM -0400, Dan Doel wrote:
Implementing type inference can be very easy in a logic language,
because most of the work in a non-logic language is implementing
unification:
Provided the implementation includes the occurs check.
On Nov 4, 2010, at 2:07 PM, wren ng thornton wrote:
Besides, it's simple enough to just use the MonadLogic class and
switch between concrete types, if you need to test performance.
You may even try to use only `MonadPlus` to get more instances. The
only instances of `MonadLogic` are
On 11/02/2010 08:37 PM, wren ng thornton wrote:
Indeed. If your program requires unification or constraint solving
then logic programming or constraint programming[1] is the way to go.
Would you be kind enough to give me or point me towards a good example
of such a case? I've been trying to
On Thursday 04 November 2010 5:13:23 pm Gregory Crosswhite wrote:
On 11/02/2010 08:37 PM, wren ng thornton wrote:
Indeed. If your program requires unification or constraint solving
then logic programming or constraint programming[1] is the way to go.
Would you be kind enough to give me
On 11/04/2010 03:06 PM, Dan Doel wrote:
Implementing type inference can be very easy in a logic language, because most
of the work in a non-logic language is implementing unification:
http://muaddibspace.blogspot.com/2008/01/type-inference-for-simply-typed-
lambda.html
3 lines of Prolog to
On 11/3/10 12:34 AM, Gregory Crosswhite wrote:
On 11/2/10 8:37 PM, wren ng thornton wrote:
Though I would suggest you look at the LogicT library instead of using
actual lists... Also, you may be interested in reading the LogicT
paper[2] or this paper[3] about search combinators in Haskell. Both
Hi Gregory,
On Nov 2, 2010, at 9:27 AM, Gregory Crosswhite wrote:
I was thinking about using Curry, but it looks to me like the
language is dead and hasn't seen much activity for a few years.
The community is smaller than the Haskell community but the PAKCS
system is still actively
On 11/2/10 7:09 AM, Sebastian Fischer wrote:
On Nov 2, 2010, at 9:27 AM, Gregory Crosswhite wrote:
Which does raise the question: when is it better to use a logic
programming language instead of the list monad?
It is more cumbersome to model logic variables and unification in a pure
On 11/2/10 8:37 PM, wren ng thornton wrote:
Though I would suggest you look at the LogicT library instead of using
actual lists... Also, you may be interested in reading the LogicT
paper[2] or this paper[3] about search combinators in Haskell. Both
offer a number of optimizations you should be
Hey everyone,
This is a little off-topic, but I just ran into a problem which might
benefit from being attacked by a logic language, so I've been looking
for a good one to try out --- and hopefully one that has a very
efficient implementation since I want to iterate through billions and
On 2/11/2010, at 1:27 PM, Gregory Crosswhite wrote:
Hey everyone,
This is a little off-topic, but I just ran into a problem which might benefit
from being attacked by a logic language,
Why not describe the problem?
so I've been looking for a good one to try out --- and hopefully one
On 11/01/2010 06:19 PM, Richard O'Keefe wrote:
On 2/11/2010, at 1:27 PM, Gregory Crosswhite wrote:
Hey everyone,
This is a little off-topic, but I just ran into a problem which might benefit
from being attacked by a logic language,
Why not describe the problem?
My goal is to
13 matches
Mail list logo