On Sunday, September 21, 2014 at 21:40, Tassilo Horn wrote:
> I think instead of `conde' you can use `conda' here, because when the
> first clause succeeds the second one cannot succeed and doesn't need to
>
Careful with the use of `conde` vs `conda`, as `conda` is an early cut. In
other words
Casper writes:
> For me that leads to the question, how do we then define the relationship
> 'descendant' (which would be the generalisation of child, grandchild etc)?
>
> (defn child [x y]
> (parent y x))
Ok, so you have a `child' relation already, so this should be easy (but
it's not teste
I think this blog post should help:
https://kotka.de/blog/2011/10/A_field_trip_into_logic_programming.html
The site seems to have an invalid certificate so you may or may not
want to proceed, but I just did and all is fine.
On 21/09/14 17:07, Casper wrote:
I have been looking through core.logic tutorials and while I "get it" I
haven't had the big epiphany yet. One thing that keeps nagging me is how to
make a relation that isn't "fixed".
An example is https://github.com/swannodette/logic-tutorial in which there
is defined some relations such as pa
