Re: doProve (was Re: Ninety-Nine Lisp Problems: pilog)

2011-07-17 Thread Alexander Burger
Hi Edwin, now this got me interested. does Alex, or anybody else, have a picolisp version of the doProve() and doUnify() c functions? Hmm, after some searching, it seems I have only a fragment of some initial version, when I experimented in Lisp before I rewrote the time critical parts in C.

Re: doProve (was Re: Ninety-Nine Lisp Problems: pilog)

2011-07-17 Thread Edwin Eyan Moragas
Hi Alex, On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Alexander Burger a...@software-lab.de wrote: Hmm, after some searching, it seems I have only a fragment of some initial version, when I experimented in Lisp before I rewrote the time critical parts in C. There is 'prove', but 'unify' seems missing.

doProve (was Re: Ninety-Nine Lisp Problems: pilog)

2011-07-16 Thread Edwin Eyan Moragas
(BTW - Many people might not realise the heart of pilog, the prove function, is written in C and seems very fast. For some prolog applications, it may be fast or faster than compiled prologs - would like to see some benchmarks to investigate that feeling. But for years, I was under the

re: Ninety-Nine Lisp Problems: pilog

2011-07-15 Thread Doug Snead
re: the 24jul10 comment: The more of the higher-numbered problems... are really typical Prolog problems! All of them involve recursive searches in some solution space. http://picolisp.com/5000/-2-1K.html Then perhaps picolisp's Prolog (pilog) would be ideal? I'm always happy to see pilog

Re: Ninety-Nine Lisp Problems: pilog

2011-07-15 Thread Alexander Burger
Hi Doug, re: the 24jul10 comment: The more of the higher-numbered problems... are really typical Prolog problems! All of them involve recursive searches in some solution space. http://picolisp.com/5000/-2-1K.html Then perhaps picolisp's Prolog (pilog) would be ideal? I'm always happy to