Oh, I see! Thanks!
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 1:45 PM Alexander Burger wrote:
> Hi Bruno,
>
> > (be vertical (line (point @X @Y) (point @X @Z)))
> > (be horizontal (line (point @X @Y) (point @Z @Y)))
> >
> > and the query:
> > (? (vertical line (point 1 2) (point 1 3)))
>
> Yes, OK, but then I
Hi Bruno,
> (be vertical (line (point @X @Y) (point @X @Z)))
> (be horizontal (line (point @X @Y) (point @Z @Y)))
>
> and the query:
> (? (vertical line (point 1 2) (point 1 3)))
Yes, OK, but then I would rather go with:
(be vertical ((line (point @X @Y1) (point @X @Y2
(be horizontal
oh yeah, the pilog definitions! sorry, here they are:
(be vertical (line (point @X @Y) (point @X @Z)))
(be horizontal (line (point @X @Y) (point @Z @Y)))
and the query:
(? (vertical line (point 1 2) (point 1 3)))
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018, 01:20 Alexander Burger wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at
On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 12:21:13AM -0500, Bruno Franco wrote:
> I had too many parentheses in the query.
>
> The correct form is:
> (? (vertical line (point 1 2) (point 1 3)))
No, this does not look right. We can't tell much unless we know all your
definitions.
—Alex
--
UNSUBSCRIBE:
e interesting to see the complete code. with All definitions.
>
> *Von:* brunofrancosala...@gmail.com
> *Gesendet:* 3. Juli 2018 7:28 vorm.
> *An:* picolisp@software-lab.de
> *Antworten:* picolisp@software-lab.de
> *Betreff:* Re: Pilog unification of a nested predicate
>
> OK
. Von: brunofrancosala...@gmail.comGesendet: 3. Juli 2018 7:28 vorm.An: picolisp@software-lab.deAntworten: picolisp@software-lab.deBetreff: Re: Pilog unification of a nested predicate OK
OK, I just got it XD
I had too many parentheses in the query.
The correct form is:
(? (vertical line (point 1 2) (point 1 3)))
But that leaves me with the question,
Why is the syntax "(vertical line (..." instead of "(vertical (line ..." ?
My best guess is that, internally, the symbol
