Re: Pilog: does 'or' not backtrack?

Alexander Burger wrote: (...) 'or' takes not singular expressions, but whole clause bodies in each argument, to allow the implicit 'and' of Prolog. Thus, an additional level of parentheses is required. A working version would be: (be bT (@N) (or ((t1 @N)) ((t2 @N))) ) Helpful as

Re: Pilog: Does NIL successfully unify with (@H . @T)?

Alexander Burger wrote: Hi Cle, Hi Alex, although not intended so, it seems I mutate the picoLisp mailing list into a Pilog mailing list ;-) Which is a good thing. This way we produce at last some Pilog documentation ;-) nice you see it that way :-) (be attributes

Re: Pilog: all clauses of a predicate have to be defined

Hi Cle, in the previous mail, I forgot to mention how to solve your problem. If you generate facts or rules automatically, you could use the functions 'asserta' and 'assertz'. They are not limited by the described source file sequence restrictions. (be fact1 (...)) (be fact1 (...))