Hi Jon,
> I think a couple of words in the ref.
> (and or the tutorial) re. 'be' and new 'sym' clauses could be a good
> thing.
True. So I have added a few lines to the reference of 'be' about that.
Let's hope it is comprehensible.
♪♫ Alex
--
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject
Thanks, Alex! This was useful info. I think a couple of words in the ref.
(and or the tutorial) re. 'be' and new 'sym' clauses could be a good
thing.
/Jon
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 04:24:14PM +0100, Alexander Burger wrote:
>> I'm not sure if this is documented in the references, but whenever 'be'
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 04:24:14PM +0100, Alexander Burger wrote:
> I'm not sure if this is documented in the references, but whenever 'be'
> detects a new 'sym' clause, it considers the previous rules to be
> finished.
BTW, you could use 'asserta' and 'assertz' to extend existing rules:
: (be
Hi Jon,
> : (be boy (alex))
> -> boy
> ...
> : (be girl (diana))
> -> girl
> ...
> : (be boy (eddy))
> -> boy
I'm not sure if this is documented in the references, but whenever 'be'
detects a new 'sym' clause, it considers the previous rules to be
finished.
This, when 'be boy' after 'be girl' is
Hi,
I do the following simple pilog stuff:
: (be boy (alex))
-> boy
: (be boy (bill))
-> boy
: (get 'boy T)
-> (((alex)) ((bill)))
: (be boy (chuck))
-> boy
: (get 'boy T)
-> (((alex)) ((bill)) ((chuck)))
: (be girl (diana))
-> girl
: (get 'boy T)
-> (((alex)) ((bill)) ((chuck)))
: (be boy (eddy
