Guess how many newer Prolog systems allow this here:
?- [user].
p;q --> r.
true.
On the other hand SWI-Prolog disallows it:
?- [user].
p;q --> r.
ERROR: user://1:29:
ERROR: No permission to define dcg_nonterminal `p;q'
In Novacore we are lucky, its a side effect of
phrase translating the head and a multi-file check:
?- [user].
p;q --> r.
Fehler: Kann Prädikat ;/2 nicht umdefinieren, nicht als Mehrdateien markiert.
But might work out differently if a DCG is expanded
and asserted. Ok, its actually not so bad:
?- expand_term((p;q --> r), X), assertz(X).
Fehler: Kann Prädikat ;/2 nicht aktualisieren.
user auf 1
Mild Shock schrieb:
Guess how many newer Prolog systems allow this here:
?- [user].
p;q --> r.
true.
On the other hand SWI-Prolog disallows it:
?- [user].
p;q --> r.
ERROR: user://1:29:
ERROR: No permission to define dcg_nonterminal `p;q'
This was discussed here:
Definite Clause Grammars Harmonization Proposal
Last edit jschimpf? October 20, 2016, at 12:42 AM https://eclipseclp.org/wiki/Prolog/DCG
Not sure why Scryer Prolog doesn't implement it.
Mild Shock schrieb:
In Novacore we are lucky, its a side effect of
phrase translating the head and a multi-file check:
?- [user].
p;q --> r.
Fehler: Kann Prädikat ;/2 nicht umdefinieren, nicht als Mehrdateien
markiert.
But might work out differently if a DCG is expanded
and asserted. Ok, its actually not so bad:
?- expand_term((p;q --> r), X), assertz(X).
Fehler: Kann Prädikat ;/2 nicht aktualisieren.
user auf 1
Mild Shock schrieb:
Guess how many newer Prolog systems allow this here:
?- [user].
p;q --> r.
true.
On the other hand SWI-Prolog disallows it:
?- [user].
p;q --> r.
ERROR: user://1:29:
ERROR: No permission to define dcg_nonterminal `p;q'
Although SWI-Prolog implements a lot of checks.
It still allows this one:
?- a-->b.
ERROR: Unknown procedure: (-->)/2
?- assertz((a-->b)).
true.
?- a-->b.
true.
Scryer Prolog managed to prevent this, in that
the assertz/1 throws an error.
Think will finally adopt this behaviour to
prevent the end-user from accidentially
fiddling with (-->)/2.
Mild Shock schrieb:
This was discussed here:
Definite Clause Grammars Harmonization Proposal
Last edit jschimpf? October 20, 2016, at 12:42 AM
https://eclipseclp.org/wiki/Prolog/DCG
Not sure why Scryer Prolog doesn't implement it.
Mild Shock schrieb:
In Novacore we are lucky, its a side effect of
phrase translating the head and a multi-file check:
?- [user].
p;q --> r.
Fehler: Kann Prädikat ;/2 nicht umdefinieren, nicht als Mehrdateien
markiert.
But might work out differently if a DCG is expanded
and asserted. Ok, its actually not so bad:
?- expand_term((p;q --> r), X), assertz(X).
Fehler: Kann Prädikat ;/2 nicht aktualisieren.
user auf 1
Mild Shock schrieb:
Guess how many newer Prolog systems allow this here:
?- [user].
p;q --> r.
true.
On the other hand SWI-Prolog disallows it:
?- [user].
p;q --> r.
ERROR: user://1:29:
ERROR: No permission to define dcg_nonterminal `p;q'
Guess how many newer Prolog systems allow this here:
?- [user].
p;q --> r.
true.
On the other hand SWI-Prolog disallows it:
?- [user].
p;q --> r.
ERROR: user://1:29:
ERROR: No permission to define dcg_nonterminal `p;q'
UWN is testing Prolog systems that don't exist anymore:
Jekejeke 1.5.0 https://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/ulrich/iso-prolog/variable_names#73
a) There is no more publicitly available Jekejeke
Prolog anymore, I think I wrote UWN already in the
past about that.
b) There is only Dogelog Player, which has a 100%
Prolog written read/write predicates including
the variable_name/1 option. Source code is here,
you also find GIT access etc to the Prolog system:
Quelltexte und Archive des Dogelog Spieler. https://www.xlog.ch/izytab/doclet/docs/07_spec/02_dogelog.html
c) There is an internal version of Jekejeke Prolog,
which is way after 1.5.0, with version 1.7.0, but
it also uses the Dogelog Payer 100% Prolog
written read/write, so no need to test.
Mild Shock schrieb:
Guess how many newer Prolog systems allow this here:
?- [user].
p;q --> r.
true.
On the other hand SWI-Prolog disallows it:
?- [user].
p;q --> r.
ERROR: user://1:29:
ERROR: No permission to define dcg_nonterminal `p;q'
import janus_swi as janus{'Y': 2, 'truth': True}
janus.query_once("Y is X+1", {"X":1})
Hi,
I recently introduce '$VAR'/1 detection in
writing again. I have now a 100% Prolog written
'$VAR'/1 capable output routine.
Somehow I found '$VAR'/1 usueful again, especially
in connection with numbersvars/3 which is in
library(compat) the two make a nice pair
of Swiss army knife for printing. What the
routines don't do, they for example don't check
variable_names/1 option for a cyclic list, so
I currently get:
/* Dogelog Player */
?- VN = ['U'=X,'V'=Y | VN], write_term(f(X,g(Y,X),Y),
[variable_names(VN)]), nl.
%%% hangs or I wasn't wainting long enough
But then SWI-Prolog does something strange,
but the error message is funny:
?- VN = ['U'=X,'V'=Y | VN], write_term(f(X,g(Y,X),Y),
[variable_names(VN)]), nl.
ERROR: Type error: `list' expected, found `'V'=V' (a compound)
Does the error message use the variable_names/1
association list that is in prepaperation somehow,
as a unintended side effect? Or what explains that
it shows 'V'=V' and not 'V'=Y'? And why does it
complain about compound? And not say something about cyclic?
This here works correctly:
?- VN = ['U'=X,'V'=Y], write_term(f(X,g(Y,X),Y),
[variable_names(VN)]), nl.
f(U,g(V,U),V)
Mild Shock schrieb:
UWN is testing Prolog systems that don't exist anymore:
Jekejeke 1.5.0
https://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/ulrich/iso-prolog/variable_names#73
a) There is no more publicitly available Jekejeke
Prolog anymore, I think I wrote UWN already in the
past about that.
b) There is only Dogelog Player, which has a 100%
Prolog written read/write predicates including
the variable_name/1 option. Source code is here,
you also find GIT access etc to the Prolog system:
Quelltexte und Archive des Dogelog Spieler.
https://www.xlog.ch/izytab/doclet/docs/07_spec/02_dogelog.html
c) There is an internal version of Jekejeke Prolog,
which is way after 1.5.0, with version 1.7.0, but
it also uses the Dogelog Payer 100% Prolog
written read/write, so no need to test.
Mild Shock schrieb:
Guess how many newer Prolog systems allow this here:
?- [user].
p;q --> r.
true.
On the other hand SWI-Prolog disallows it:
?- [user].
p;q --> r.
ERROR: user://1:29:
ERROR: No permission to define dcg_nonterminal `p;q'
I have a question, does SWI-Prolog not anymore use--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114
their dict syntax in the Janus interface:
import janus_swi as janus{'Y': 2, 'truth': True}
janus.query_once("Y is X+1", {"X":1})
I don’t see _{...} anymore. When and how did this
happen? I was just thinking whether a Syntax
extension PIP is necessary. Such a PIP isn’t listed:
https://prolog-lang.org/ImplementersForum/PIPs.html
Is SWI-Prolog safe, against parsing problems,
when it still has block operators in the
background? Like can one mix and match
code that uses Janus interface with the
“new” dicts with other code that uses the
SWI-Prolog dicts based on _{...}
which we might now term the “old” dicts.
How do you access and manipulate the
“new” dicts, do the “old” operations work?
Anything that touches or depends on syntax
is a complete can of worms. The ISO commitee
was not able to find an initial *english natural
language specification wording* for character
look-ahead, so that we find now character
look-ahead in Prolog compounds practially
implemented by all Prolog systems, but character
look-ahead interpretation may differ for
negative numbers, like here:
/* SWI-Prolog */
?- X = - 1^2, write_canonical(X), nl.
-(^(1,2))
/* Scryer Prolog */
?- X = - 1^2, write_canonical(X), nl.
^(-1,2)
But in the case of Scryer Prolog it doesn't
matter, since Scryer Prolog is anyway dead.
Mild Shock schrieb:
I have a question, does SWI-Prolog not anymore use
their dict syntax in the Janus interface:
import janus_swi as janus{'Y': 2, 'truth': True}
janus.query_once("Y is X+1", {"X":1})
I don’t see _{...} anymore. When and how did this
happen? I was just thinking whether a Syntax
extension PIP is necessary. Such a PIP isn’t listed:
https://prolog-lang.org/ImplementersForum/PIPs.html
Is SWI-Prolog safe, against parsing problems,
when it still has block operators in the
background? Like can one mix and match
code that uses Janus interface with the
“new” dicts with other code that uses the
SWI-Prolog dicts based on _{...}
which we might now term the “old” dicts.
How do you access and manipulate the
“new” dicts, do the “old” operations work?
import janus_swi as janus{'Y': 2, 'truth': True}
janus.query_once("Y is X+1", {"X":1})
So we have two victims in 2024, two
things died in 2024, are pepsi now:
- Scryer Prolog
- SWI-Prolog Dicts
LoL
Mild Shock schrieb:
Anything that touches or depends on syntax
is a complete can of worms. The ISO commitee
was not able to find an initial *english natural
language specification wording* for character
look-ahead, so that we find now character
look-ahead in Prolog compounds practially
implemented by all Prolog systems, but character
look-ahead interpretation may differ for
negative numbers, like here:
/* SWI-Prolog */
?- X = - 1^2, write_canonical(X), nl.
-(^(1,2))
/* Scryer Prolog */
?- X = - 1^2, write_canonical(X), nl.
^(-1,2)
But in the case of Scryer Prolog it doesn't
matter, since Scryer Prolog is anyway dead.
Mild Shock schrieb:
I have a question, does SWI-Prolog not anymore use
their dict syntax in the Janus interface:
import janus_swi as janus{'Y': 2, 'truth': True}
janus.query_once("Y is X+1", {"X":1})
I don’t see _{...} anymore. When and how did this
happen? I was just thinking whether a Syntax
extension PIP is necessary. Such a PIP isn’t listed:
https://prolog-lang.org/ImplementersForum/PIPs.html
Is SWI-Prolog safe, against parsing problems,
when it still has block operators in the
background? Like can one mix and match
code that uses Janus interface with the
“new” dicts with other code that uses the
SWI-Prolog dicts based on _{...}
which we might now term the “old” dicts.
How do you access and manipulate the
“new” dicts, do the “old” operations work?
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114So we have two victims in 2024, two
things died in 2024, are pepsi now:
- Scryer Prolog
- SWI-Prolog Dicts
LoL
Guess how many newer Prolog systems allow this here:
?- [user].
p;q --> r.
true.
On the other hand SWI-Prolog disallows it:
?- [user].
p;q --> r.
ERROR: user://1:29:
ERROR: No permission to define dcg_nonterminal `p;q'
.
Hi,
SARS-CoV-2 variant are classified as variant under
monitoring (VUM), variant of interest (VOI)
and variant of concern (VOC).
How would we classify PIPs. Here is a list:
- PIP 701: Tasks
Stackfull and stackless cooperative cooroutines.
- PIP 702: Events
An event loop to “asyncify” file system access, network
access, queues, terminals, windowing systems, etc…
- PIP 801: Threads
Split off from Paulo Maura’s multi-threading document.
- PIP 801: Mutex
Split off from Paulo Maura’s multi-threading document.
- PIP 802: Message queues for multi-threading
Split off from Paulo Maura’s multi-threading document.
- PIP 803: Simpler queues not for multi-threading (@marco’s ?)
Other sources here.
- PIP 901: Embrace strings
String literal, unify, (==)/2 and (@<)/2
- PIP 902: Fully embrace strings
String is/2, (=:=)/2 and (<)/2
- PIP 903: Partial strings
Compact and shared char lists.
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
Guess how many newer Prolog systems allow this here:
?- [user].
p;q --> r.
true.
On the other hand SWI-Prolog disallows it:
?- [user].
p;q --> r.
ERROR: user://1:29:
ERROR: No permission to define dcg_nonterminal `p;q'
The PIP 903: Partial strings wasn't
so successful yet. Although pursued by
two Prolog systems, Scryer Prolog
and Trealla Prolog, the results are
not a banger performance wise. Could
have to do with some DCG pipe dreams:
/* Scryer Prolog 0.9.4-135 */
?- time((between(1,1000,_), data(X), json_chars(Y,X,[]), fail; true)).
% CPU time: 0.283s, 2_506_022 inferences
true.
/* Trealla Prolog 2.55.19 */
?- time((between(1,1000,_), data(X), json_chars(Y,X,[]), fail; true)).
% Time elapsed 0.235s, 2568003 Inferences, 10.937 MLips
true.
/* Dogelog Player for Java 1.2.1 */
?- time((between(1,1000,_), data(X), json_atom(Y,X), fail; true)).
% Zeit 40 ms, GC 0 ms, Lips 12502725, Uhr 13.08.2024 08:43
true.
/* SWI-Prolog 9.3.8 */
?- time((between(1,1000,_), data(X), atom_json_term(X,Y,[]), fail; true)).
% 44,998 inferences, 0.016 CPU in 0.006 seconds (281% CPU, 2879872 Lips) true.
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
.
Hi,
SARS-CoV-2 variant are classified as variant under
monitoring (VUM), variant of interest (VOI)
and variant of concern (VOC).
How would we classify PIPs. Here is a list:
- PIP 701: Tasks
Stackfull and stackless cooperative cooroutines.
- PIP 702: Events
An event loop to “asyncify” file system access, network
access, queues, terminals, windowing systems, etc…
- PIP 801: Threads
Split off from Paulo Maura’s multi-threading document.
- PIP 801: Mutex
Split off from Paulo Maura’s multi-threading document.
- PIP 802: Message queues for multi-threading
Split off from Paulo Maura’s multi-threading document.
- PIP 803: Simpler queues not for multi-threading (@marco’s ?)
Other sources here.
- PIP 901: Embrace strings
String literal, unify, (==)/2 and (@<)/2
- PIP 902: Fully embrace strings
String is/2, (=:=)/2 and (<)/2
- PIP 903: Partial strings
Compact and shared char lists.
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
Guess how many newer Prolog systems allow this here:
?- [user].
p;q --> r.
true.
On the other hand SWI-Prolog disallows it:
?- [user].
p;q --> r.
ERROR: user://1:29:
ERROR: No permission to define dcg_nonterminal `p;q'
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 997 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 226:45:31 |
| Calls: | 13,046 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 186,574 |
| Messages: | 3,292,808 |