Re: Logic Programming with Rules

2005-03-09 Thread Ovid
--- Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But come to think of it, it almost definitely makes more sense to > port Prolog or some other LP engine to Parrot, and then intermingle the > languages at that level. I don't think very many of us have fully > grasped what Parrot can do for Perl yet. I'

Re: Logic Programming with Rules

2005-03-09 Thread Rod Adams
Ovid wrote: --- Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I was just relaying the observation that the P6RE was fairly close to being able to implement Logical Programming, which several people seem to be trying to get into Perl in some fashion or another. When I get a chance to talk to someone

Re: Logic Programming with Rules (and Argument Patterns)

2005-03-09 Thread Ovid
--- Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was just relaying the observation that the P6RE was fairly close to > being able to implement Logical Programming, which several people > seem to be trying to get into Perl in some fashion or another. When I get a chance to talk to someone about logic p

Re: Logic Programming with Rules (and Argument Patterns)

2005-03-09 Thread Rod Adams
Larry Wall wrote: I suspect it's another one of the many things we just try to stay within hailing distance of without trying to solve for 6.0.0. That's cool. I was just relaying the observation that the P6RE was fairly close to being able to implement Logical Programming, which several people

Re: Logic Programming with Rules (and Argument Patterns)

2005-03-09 Thread Larry Wall
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 08:56:22AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote: : I was decently insane last night. This generator stuff probably isn't : going anywhere. It's too abstract, and not precise enough, to be a : truly powerful part of the language. I suspect it's another one of the many things we just t

Re: Logic Programming with Rules (and Argument Patterns)

2005-03-09 Thread Luke Palmer
Rod Adams writes: > > > >You could do all of this with a library of rules. > > > > / $:= )> / > > > > > I don't think this does what I want. In this, &generate returns a rule > or string of some kind, matches the string being tested, captures what > matches, and then binds the capture to $.

Re: Logic Programming with Rules (and Argument Patterns)

2005-03-09 Thread Rod Adams
Luke Palmer wrote: Rod Adams writes: Or you could avoid the global modifier and write your tests in <( )> blocks instead... after all, that's what it's there for. I *knew* I had seen a syntax for that before... I just didn't see it when I scanned S05 for it. I still want the :z modifier for

Re: Logic Programming with Rules (and Argument Patterns)

2005-03-09 Thread Luke Palmer
Rod Adams writes: > Indeed, a great deal of logical testing can be performed with the > current P6RE definition. > > For instance: > >rule Equal ($x, $y) {{ $x ~~ $y or fail }}; >rule Substr (Str $str, Str $in) {{ $in ~~ /<$str>/ or fail }}; >rule IsAbsValue (Num $x, Num $y) { >

Logic Programming with Rules

2005-03-09 Thread Rod Adams
There's been rumblings on this list lately about making Perl perform more Logic based programming functions, a la Prolog. Having done some work with Prolog in academia, I fully understand why this is desirable. It occurs to me that underlying functionality of Prolog is moderately similar to the P6R