I have attached version two which is modeled after your advice, much smaller
and more elegant.
The question is, is it faster? I will have to test that tomorrow.
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Alexander Burger wrote:
> Hi Henrik,
>
> > The code is quite ugly with a lot of catch throw statemen
Hi Henrik,
> The code is quite ugly with a lot of catch throw statements due to the fact
> that I want things to terminate right away if the query fails.
I haven't investigated it too deeply yet, but perhaps these catch/throw
constructs can be avoided: 'for' can be terminated at any time using th
I've attached the code, it's in my normal class/namespace based style. It
doesn't feel very lispish/functional.
The code is quite ugly with a lot of catch throw statements due to the fact
that I want things to terminate right away if the query fails.
I use the below code to test with and as far a
Thanks Alex.
We'll see what I'll manage come up with.
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Alexander Burger wrote:
> Hi Henrik,
>
> > When it comes to examining arbitrary lists can Pilog be a good (as in
> terse)
> > and fast fit?
>
> I'm not really convinced. My opinion is that Prolog is good at o
Hi Henrik,
> When it comes to examining arbitrary lists can Pilog be a good (as in terse)
> and fast fit?
I'm not really convinced. My opinion is that Prolog is good at only one
task: Search with backtracking.
For simple pattern matches, direct Lisp code is usually simpler (and
faster). With 'me
