Now my world view about Rust programming lanuage is in
pieces. Isn't Rust a safe programming language?

So I would expect more than only a "Segment Fault":

$ target/release/scryer-prolog --version
"v0.8.123-892-gd92d8bc"

$ target/release/scryer-prolog
?- catch(retract(true), error(E,_), true).
Segmentation fault

My expectation is biased by Java, which is an early supposedly
safe language, which has more tellîng exceptions.

Also where are the Log-Nonsense-Talk test cases,
that found this problem?

Also for a Prolog system such as Scryer Prolog,
that has become the abode of ultra orthodox ISO

core standard prolog freedom fighters,
I wonder why this wrong behaviour exists:

$ target/release/scryer-prolog
?- retract(retract(_)).
false.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Montag, 4. April 2022 um 10:01:07 UTC+2:
> Now my world view about Rust programming lanuage is in
> pieces. Isn't Rust a safe programming language?
>
> So I would expect more than only a "Segment Fault":
>
> $ target/release/scryer-prolog --version
> "v0.8.123-892-gd92d8bc"
>
> $ target/release/scryer-prolog
> ?- catch(retract(true), error(E,_), true).
> Segmentation fault
>
> My expectation is biased by Java, which is an early supposedly
> safe language, which has more tellîng exceptions.
>
> Also where are the Log-Nonsense-Talk test cases,
> that found this problem?

This is also a nice one, Scryer-Prolog:

?- [user].
foo.
:- dynamic(foo/0).
^D

But a couple of Prolog systems do not permit change of
type of a predicate. For example GNU Prolog and
ECLiPSe Prolog perform a check.

A displaced dynamic directive could be indicative of
a typo, so I am rather in favor of such a check.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Montag, 4. April 2022 um 10:03:14 UTC+2:
> Also for a Prolog system such as Scryer Prolog,
> that has become the abode of ultra orthodox ISO
>
> core standard prolog freedom fighters,
> I wonder why this wrong behaviour exists:
>
> $ target/release/scryer-prolog
> ?- retract(retract(_)).
> false.
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Montag, 4. April 2022 um 10:01:07 UTC+2:
> > Now my world view about Rust programming lanuage is in
> > pieces. Isn't Rust a safe programming language?
> >
> > So I would expect more than only a "Segment Fault":
> >
> > $ target/release/scryer-prolog --version
> > "v0.8.123-892-gd92d8bc"
> >
> > $ target/release/scryer-prolog
> > ?- catch(retract(true), error(E,_), true).
> > Segmentation fault
> >
> > My expectation is biased by Java, which is an early supposedly
> > safe language, which has more tellîng exceptions.
> >
> > Also where are the Log-Nonsense-Talk test cases,
> > that found this problem?

Same problem in SWI-Prolog. This actually leads to a subtle
bug when reconsulting. The bug is seen here. Since the clear
is only done when some clause arrives and not already

during the directive, the clear also removes the directive.
So you can basically not reconsult and change from static
into dynamic. Whereby this would work correctly in GNU Prolog:

/* SWI-Prolog (threaded, 64 bits, version 8.5.8) */
?- [user].
|: foo.
|:
% user://1 compiled 0.02 sec, 1 clauses
true.

?- [user].
|: :- dynamic(foo/0).
|: foo.

Warning: user://2:15:
Warning: Redefined static procedure foo/0
Warning: Previously defined at user://1:8
|:
% user://2 compiled 0.00 sec, 1 clauses
true.

?- predicate_property(foo, X).
....
X = static ;
....

The bug is that the predicate is static and not dynamic.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Montag, 4. April 2022 um 22:10:46 UTC+2:
> This is also a nice one, Scryer-Prolog:
>
> ?- [user].
> foo.
> :- dynamic(foo/0).
> ^D
>
> But a couple of Prolog systems do not permit change of
> type of a predicate. For example GNU Prolog and
> ECLiPSe Prolog perform a check.
>
> A displaced dynamic directive could be indicative of
> a typo, so I am rather in favor of such a check.

Oh my dear, Scryer Prolog lost the battle with its
char lists = strings idea and his preference for chars APIs.
I don't have a single chars API in Dogelog Player, was

fully betting on codes only, makes life much easier.
Now this here. BTW: A library charsio does not anymore
exist in SICStus Prolog 4.7.1:

| :- use_module(library(charsio)).
! Existence error in argument 1 of use_module/1
! file library(charsio) does not exist
! goal: use_module(user:library(charsio))

Oh the irony, I did find a library codesio:

| ?- use_module(library(codesio)).
% loading d:/software/logic/sics/library/codesio.po...
% module codesio imported into user
% loading d:/software/logic/sics/library/types.po...
% module types imported into codesio
% loaded d:/software/logic/sics/library/types.po in module types, 0 msec 6432 bytes
% loading foreign resource d:/software/logic/sics/library/x86_64-win32-nt-4/codesio.dll in module codesio
% loaded d:/software/logic/sics/library/codesio.po in module codesio, 0 msec 64768 bytes
yes
| ?- read_from_codes("X+Y.", T).
T = _A+_B ?

LoL

Here is a challenge. From SWI-Prolog I am used to:

?- atomic_list_concat([a,b,c],',',A).
A = 'a,b,c'.
?- use_module(library(dialect/ifprolog)).
true.

?- atom_split(A, ',', [a,b,c]).
A = 'a,b,c'.

Something similar available for Scryer Prolog? These predicates
offer the opportunity for some O(n) implementation, compared
to a naive Prolog bootstrapping with atom_concat/3 which is O(n^2).

This holds for the modes atom_split(-, +, +) and atomic_list_concat(+, +, -).
The other mode I am not exactly sure whether there is really an opportunity.
The predicate mode atom_split(-, +, +) also brings back to Prolog

the join() idiom, widely discussed in JavaScript and Python places.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Sonntag, 17. April 2022 um 02:30:23 UTC+2:
> Oh my dear, Scryer Prolog lost the battle with its
> char lists = strings idea and his preference for chars APIs.
> I don't have a single chars API in Dogelog Player, was
>
> fully betting on codes only, makes life much easier.
> Now this here. BTW: A library charsio does not anymore
> exist in SICStus Prolog 4.7.1:
>
> | :- use_module(library(charsio)).
> ! Existence error in argument 1 of use_module/1
> ! file library(charsio) does not exist
> ! goal: use_module(user:library(charsio))
>
> Oh the irony, I did find a library codesio:
>
> | ?- use_module(library(codesio)).
> % loading d:/software/logic/sics/library/codesio.po...
> % module codesio imported into user
> % loading d:/software/logic/sics/library/types.po...
> % module types imported into codesio
> % loaded d:/software/logic/sics/library/types.po in module types, 0 msec 6432 bytes
> % loading foreign resource d:/software/logic/sics/library/x86_64-win32-nt-4/codesio.dll in module codesio
> % loaded d:/software/logic/sics/library/codesio.po in module codesio, 0 msec 64768 bytes
> yes
> | ?- read_from_codes("X+Y.", T).
> T = _A+_B ?
>
> LoL

Somehow flatten/2 can be used for atom_list_concat/3,
at least this would work, when atoms itself are lists.
But do chars perform better than codes?

I did a little test for Scryer Prolog:

$ target/release/scryer-prolog --version
"v0.9.0-101-gb4486818"
$ target/release/scryer-prolog
....
?- length(L,1000), maplist(=([97, 98, 99, 97, 98, 99, 97, 98, 99]),L),
time((between(1,1000,_), flatten(L,_,[]), fail; true)), fail.
% CPU time: 4.730s
false.

?- length(L,1000), maplist(=("abcabcabc"),L),
time((between(1,1000,_), flatten(L,_,[]), fail; true)), fail.
% CPU time: 4.956s
false.

Using:

flatten([]) --> !, [].
flatten([X|Y]) --> !, flatten(X), flatten(Y).
flatten(X) --> [X].

What is the explanation of the ca. 5% slow-down?

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Sonntag, 17. April 2022 um 14:10:27 UTC+2:
> Here is a challenge. From SWI-Prolog I am used to:
>
> ?- atomic_list_concat([a,b,c],',',A).
> A = 'a,b,c'.
>
> ?- use_module(library(dialect/ifprolog)).
> true.
>
> ?- atom_split(A, ',', [a,b,c]).
> A = 'a,b,c'.
>
> Something similar available for Scryer Prolog? These predicates
> offer the opportunity for some O(n) implementation, compared
> to a naive Prolog bootstrapping with atom_concat/3 which is O(n^2).
>
> This holds for the modes atom_split(-, +, +) and atomic_list_concat(+, +, -).
> The other mode I am not exactly sure whether there is really an opportunity.
> The predicate mode atom_split(-, +, +) also brings back to Prolog
>
> the join() idiom, widely discussed in JavaScript and Python places.
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Sonntag, 17. April 2022 um 02:30:23 UTC+2:
> > Oh my dear, Scryer Prolog lost the battle with its
> > char lists = strings idea and his preference for chars APIs.
> > I don't have a single chars API in Dogelog Player, was
> >
> > fully betting on codes only, makes life much easier.
> > Now this here. BTW: A library charsio does not anymore
> > exist in SICStus Prolog 4.7.1:
> >
> > | :- use_module(library(charsio)).
> > ! Existence error in argument 1 of use_module/1
> > ! file library(charsio) does not exist
> > ! goal: use_module(user:library(charsio))
> >
> > Oh the irony, I did find a library codesio:
> >
> > | ?- use_module(library(codesio)).
> > % loading d:/software/logic/sics/library/codesio.po...
> > % module codesio imported into user
> > % loading d:/software/logic/sics/library/types.po...
> > % module types imported into codesio
> > % loaded d:/software/logic/sics/library/types.po in module types, 0 msec 6432 bytes
> > % loading foreign resource d:/software/logic/sics/library/x86_64-win32-nt-4/codesio.dll in module codesio
> > % loaded d:/software/logic/sics/library/codesio.po in module codesio, 0 msec 64768 bytes
> > yes
> > | ?- read_from_codes("X+Y.", T).
> > T = _A+_B ?
> >
> > LoL

In SWI-Prolog, there is no difference larger than 1%:

?- set_prolog_flag(double_quotes, codes).
true.

?- length(L,1000), maplist(=("abcabcabc"),L),
time((between(1,1000,_), flatten(L,_,[]), fail; true)), fail.
% 20,002,000 inferences, 1.000 CPU in 1.000 seconds (100% CPU, 20002000 Lips)
false.

?- set_prolog_flag(double_quotes, chars).
true.

?- length(L,1000), maplist(=("abcabcabc"),L),
time((between(1,1000,_), flatten(L,_,[]), fail; true)), fail.
% 20,002,000 inferences, 1.000 CPU in 0.999 seconds (100% CPU, 20002000 Lips)
false.

Although I didn't consult Scryer Prolog GitHub, I have
a suspicion why chars are slower than codes in Scryer
Prolog. But I wonder what the experts say.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Sonntag, 17. April 2022 um 22:39:14 UTC+2:
> Somehow flatten/2 can be used for atom_list_concat/3,
> at least this would work, when atoms itself are lists.
> But do chars perform better than codes?
>
> I did a little test for Scryer Prolog:
>
> $ target/release/scryer-prolog --version
> "v0.9.0-101-gb4486818"
> $ target/release/scryer-prolog
> ...
> ?- length(L,1000), maplist(=([97, 98, 99, 97, 98, 99, 97, 98, 99]),L),
> time((between(1,1000,_), flatten(L,_,[]), fail; true)), fail.
> % CPU time: 4.730s
> false.
>
> ?- length(L,1000), maplist(=("abcabcabc"),L),
> time((between(1,1000,_), flatten(L,_,[]), fail; true)), fail.
> % CPU time: 4.956s
> false.
>
> Using:
>
> flatten([]) --> !, [].
> flatten([X|Y]) --> !, flatten(X), flatten(Y).
> flatten(X) --> [X].
>
> What is the explanation of the ca. 5% slow-down?
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Sonntag, 17. April 2022 um 14:10:27 UTC+2:
> > Here is a challenge. From SWI-Prolog I am used to:
> >
> > ?- atomic_list_concat([a,b,c],',',A).
> > A = 'a,b,c'.
> >
> > ?- use_module(library(dialect/ifprolog)).
> > true.
> >
> > ?- atom_split(A, ',', [a,b,c]).
> > A = 'a,b,c'.
> >
> > Something similar available for Scryer Prolog? These predicates
> > offer the opportunity for some O(n) implementation, compared
> > to a naive Prolog bootstrapping with atom_concat/3 which is O(n^2).
> >
> > This holds for the modes atom_split(-, +, +) and atomic_list_concat(+, +, -).
> > The other mode I am not exactly sure whether there is really an opportunity.
> > The predicate mode atom_split(-, +, +) also brings back to Prolog
> >
> > the join() idiom, widely discussed in JavaScript and Python places.
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Sonntag, 17. April 2022 um 02:30:23 UTC+2:
> > > Oh my dear, Scryer Prolog lost the battle with its
> > > char lists = strings idea and his preference for chars APIs.
> > > I don't have a single chars API in Dogelog Player, was
> > >
> > > fully betting on codes only, makes life much easier.
> > > Now this here. BTW: A library charsio does not anymore
> > > exist in SICStus Prolog 4.7.1:
> > >
> > > | :- use_module(library(charsio)).
> > > ! Existence error in argument 1 of use_module/1
> > > ! file library(charsio) does not exist
> > > ! goal: use_module(user:library(charsio))
> > >
> > > Oh the irony, I did find a library codesio:
> > >
> > > | ?- use_module(library(codesio)).
> > > % loading d:/software/logic/sics/library/codesio.po...
> > > % module codesio imported into user
> > > % loading d:/software/logic/sics/library/types.po...
> > > % module types imported into codesio
> > > % loaded d:/software/logic/sics/library/types.po in module types, 0 msec 6432 bytes
> > > % loading foreign resource d:/software/logic/sics/library/x86_64-win32-nt-4/codesio.dll in module codesio
> > > % loaded d:/software/logic/sics/library/codesio.po in module codesio, 0 msec 64768 bytes
> > > yes
> > > | ?- read_from_codes("X+Y.", T).
> > > T = _A+_B ?
> > >
> > > LoL

This could run for ever:

?- A=(1=1, call(A)), A.
But so far I find:

SWI Prolog: Fail ✗
SICStus Prolog: Pass ✓
Formerly Jekejeke Prolog: Fail ✗
Dogelog Player: Pass ✓
Scryer Prolog: Fail ✗

Maybe I can bring the same from Dogelog Player to formerly Jekejeke
Prolog as well? To see the Scryer Prolog Fail, you need to watch the
memory growing and growing.

The other Prolog systems that do Pass have constant memory.

There are many libraries that use meta calls. For example
Bart Demoen et al. “Tor” and Ulrich Neumerkels “indexing dif”:

Tor: Extensible Search with Hookable Disjunction
https://www.swi-prolog.org/pack/list?p=tor

Many Prolog programs are unnecessarily impure
https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01590

But the issue needs of course be also examined for call/n
and not only call/1. Currently Dogelog Player doesn’t have call/n,
only call/1, so I don’t know. I also don’t know why it doesn’t

work in formerly Jekejeke Prolog or in SWI-Prolog. In SWI-Prolog
if you create a temporary clause, last call optimization could skip
it, but you need also a mechanism to garbage collect it.

In formerly Jekejeke Prolog I create a temporary half clause,
only the body of a clause. I thought I made it so that it gets skip
and garbage collected, maybe there is a bug somewhere.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 23. April 2022 um 22:57:29 UTC+2:
> This could run for ever:
>
> ?- A=(1=1, call(A)), A.
> But so far I find:
>
> SWI Prolog: Fail ✗
> SICStus Prolog: Pass ✓
> Formerly Jekejeke Prolog: Fail ✗
> Dogelog Player: Pass ✓
> Scryer Prolog: Fail ✗
>
> Maybe I can bring the same from Dogelog Player to formerly Jekejeke
> Prolog as well? To see the Scryer Prolog Fail, you need to watch the
> memory growing and growing.
>
> The other Prolog systems that do Pass have constant memory.

Practically the example can be made run on most Prolog
systems by replacing call/1 by Vanilla Interpreter solve/1.
When I use this here:

solve(X=X).
solve(solve(A)) :- solve(A).
solve((A,B)) :- solve(A), solve(B).

I can run this query:

?- A=(1=1, solve(A)), solve(A).

Indefinitely. The test results are now:

SWI Prolog: Pass ✓
SICStus Prolog: Pass ✓
Formerly Jekejeke Prolog: Pass ✓
Dogelog Player: Pass ✓
Scryer Prolog: Pass ✓

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Sonntag, 24. April 2022 um 14:32:07 UTC+2:
> There are many libraries that use meta calls. For example
> Bart Demoen et al. “Tor” and Ulrich Neumerkels “indexing dif”:
>
> Tor: Extensible Search with Hookable Disjunction
> https://www.swi-prolog.org/pack/list?p=tor
>
> Many Prolog programs are unnecessarily impure
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01590
>
> But the issue needs of course be also examined for call/n
> and not only call/1. Currently Dogelog Player doesn’t have call/n,
> only call/1, so I don’t know. I also don’t know why it doesn’t
>
> work in formerly Jekejeke Prolog or in SWI-Prolog. In SWI-Prolog
> if you create a temporary clause, last call optimization could skip
> it, but you need also a mechanism to garbage collect it.
>
> In formerly Jekejeke Prolog I create a temporary half clause,
> only the body of a clause. I thought I made it so that it gets skip
> and garbage collected, maybe there is a bug somewhere.
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 23. April 2022 um 22:57:29 UTC+2:
> > This could run for ever:
> >
> > ?- A=(1=1, call(A)), A.
> > But so far I find:
> >
> > SWI Prolog: Fail ✗
> > SICStus Prolog: Pass ✓
> > Formerly Jekejeke Prolog: Fail ✗
> > Dogelog Player: Pass ✓
> > Scryer Prolog: Fail ✗
> >
> > Maybe I can bring the same from Dogelog Player to formerly Jekejeke
> > Prolog as well? To see the Scryer Prolog Fail, you need to watch the
> > memory growing and growing.
> >
> > The other Prolog systems that do Pass have constant memory.

Finally on YouTube

ALAIN COLMERAUER L'AVENTURE PROLOG
11.04.2022 - Prolog Heritage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74Ig_QKndvE

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Sonntag, 24. April 2022 um 20:47:05 UTC+2:
> Practically the example can be made run on most Prolog
> systems by replacing call/1 by Vanilla Interpreter solve/1.
> When I use this here:
>
> solve(X=X).
> solve(solve(A)) :- solve(A).
> solve((A,B)) :- solve(A), solve(B).
>
> I can run this query:
>
> ?- A=(1=1, solve(A)), solve(A).
>
> Indefinitely. The test results are now:
>
> SWI Prolog: Pass ✓
> SICStus Prolog: Pass ✓
> Formerly Jekejeke Prolog: Pass ✓
> Dogelog Player: Pass ✓
> Scryer Prolog: Pass ✓
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Sonntag, 24. April 2022 um 14:32:07 UTC+2:
> > There are many libraries that use meta calls. For example
> > Bart Demoen et al. “Tor” and Ulrich Neumerkels “indexing dif”:
> >
> > Tor: Extensible Search with Hookable Disjunction
> > https://www.swi-prolog.org/pack/list?p=tor
> >
> > Many Prolog programs are unnecessarily impure
> > https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01590
> >
> > But the issue needs of course be also examined for call/n
> > and not only call/1. Currently Dogelog Player doesn’t have call/n,
> > only call/1, so I don’t know. I also don’t know why it doesn’t
> >
> > work in formerly Jekejeke Prolog or in SWI-Prolog. In SWI-Prolog
> > if you create a temporary clause, last call optimization could skip
> > it, but you need also a mechanism to garbage collect it.
> >
> > In formerly Jekejeke Prolog I create a temporary half clause,
> > only the body of a clause. I thought I made it so that it gets skip
> > and garbage collected, maybe there is a bug somewhere.
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 23. April 2022 um 22:57:29 UTC+2:
> > > This could run for ever:
> > >
> > > ?- A=(1=1, call(A)), A.
> > > But so far I find:
> > >
> > > SWI Prolog: Fail ✗
> > > SICStus Prolog: Pass ✓
> > > Formerly Jekejeke Prolog: Fail ✗
> > > Dogelog Player: Pass ✓
> > > Scryer Prolog: Fail ✗
> > >
> > > Maybe I can bring the same from Dogelog Player to formerly Jekejeke
> > > Prolog as well? To see the Scryer Prolog Fail, you need to watch the
> > > memory growing and growing.
> > >
> > > The other Prolog systems that do Pass have constant memory.

Why is there no coverage of the ISO core standard, maybe
I didn't watch it closely... ? Do the French hate the British
so much, that they would like to beton the Channel Tunnel?

LoL

P.S.: I slowly start hating the Portuguese because of
Logtalk Nonsense. And recently a math troll...

Mostowski Collapse schrieb:
>
> Finally on YouTube
>
> ALAIN COLMERAUER L'AVENTURE PROLOG
> 11.04.2022 - Prolog Heritage
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74Ig_QKndvE

Blame it on Robert Kowalski, he even creates
an artificial Schism between Edinburgh Prolog
and Colmerauer Prolog in the video,

But guess what the name "Kowalski" is not
British, thats rather something Polish.
There really exists something

like an academic Prolog idiot...

LMAO

P.S.: Please make an extended version of
the video, if you have more material. And
say something about the ISO core standard.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb:
>
> Why is there no coverage of the ISO core standard, maybe
> I didn't watch it closely... ? Do the French hate the British
> so much, that they would like to beton the Channel Tunnel?
>
> LoL
>
> P.S.: I slowly start hating the Portuguese because of
> Logtalk Nonsense. And recently a math troll...
>
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb:
>>
>> Finally on YouTube
>>
>> ALAIN COLMERAUER L'AVENTURE PROLOG
>> 11.04.2022 -  Prolog Heritage
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74Ig_QKndvE

Maybe the war between French and British is nevertheless
over, the Lady showed in one scene a logic booklet by Lewis
Caroll. Or maybe the lady though Caroll is a french name?

Dont know where this name is from. Could be Czech?

P.S.: Could be also an interesting booklet for Dan Christensen,
too improve his skills in basic logic.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 29. April 2022 um 13:37:40 UTC+2:
> Blame it on Robert Kowalski, he even creates
> an artificial Schism between Edinburgh Prolog
> and Colmerauer Prolog in the video,
>
> But guess what the name "Kowalski" is not
> British, thats rather something Polish.
> There really exists something
>
> like an academic Prolog idiot...
>
> LMAO
>
> P.S.: Please make an extended version of
> the video, if you have more material. And
> say something about the ISO core standard.
>
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb:
> >
> > Why is there no coverage of the ISO core standard, maybe
> > I didn't watch it closely... ? Do the French hate the British
> > so much, that they would like to beton the Channel Tunnel?
> >
> > LoL
> >
> > P.S.: I slowly start hating the Portuguese because of
> > Logtalk Nonsense. And recently a math troll...
> >
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb:
> >>
> >> Finally on YouTube
> >>
> >> ALAIN COLMERAUER L'AVENTURE PROLOG
> >> 11.04.2022 - Prolog Heritage
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74Ig_QKndvE

Okay, typo Carroll, and only a clever artist name:

Charles Lutwidge Dodgson
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Carroll

Do I have permission from
https://math.stackexchange.com/users/742/arturo-magidin
To cite wikipedia?

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 30. April 2022 um 17:38:41 UTC+2:
> Maybe the war between French and British is nevertheless
> over, the Lady showed in one scene a logic booklet by Lewis
> Caroll. Or maybe the lady though Caroll is a french name?
>
> Dont know where this name is from. Could be Czech?
>
> P.S.: Could be also an interesting booklet for Dan Christensen,
> too improve his skills in basic logic.
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 29. April 2022 um 13:37:40 UTC+2:
> > Blame it on Robert Kowalski, he even creates
> > an artificial Schism between Edinburgh Prolog
> > and Colmerauer Prolog in the video,
> >
> > But guess what the name "Kowalski" is not
> > British, thats rather something Polish.
> > There really exists something
> >
> > like an academic Prolog idiot...
> >
> > LMAO
> >
> > P.S.: Please make an extended version of
> > the video, if you have more material. And
> > say something about the ISO core standard.
> >
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb:
> > >
> > > Why is there no coverage of the ISO core standard, maybe
> > > I didn't watch it closely... ? Do the French hate the British
> > > so much, that they would like to beton the Channel Tunnel?
> > >
> > > LoL
> > >
> > > P.S.: I slowly start hating the Portuguese because of
> > > Logtalk Nonsense. And recently a math troll...
> > >
> > > Mostowski Collapse schrieb:
> > >>
> > >> Finally on YouTube
> > >>
> > >> ALAIN COLMERAUER L'AVENTURE PROLOG
> > >> 11.04.2022 - Prolog Heritage
> > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74Ig_QKndvE

Woa! A moment of silence for Scryer Prolog.
It has become irreversibly unuseable, even
basic Prolog logic doesn't work anymore...

What the heck are they doing? Tons of unification
and char list tickets on GitHub. But elementary
things like switch_on_term / switch_on_constant

/ put_unsafe_value are troubled by random numbers?

So I heard it through the grape wine, Scryer Prolog
does not have DCG (\+)/1. Dang! So far ECLiPSe Prolog,
SWI-Prolog, GNU Prolog, SICStus Prolog have it.

Why is this so? UWNs code doesn't make any sense:

dcg_cbody(\+ GRBody, S0, S, ( \+ phrase(GRBody1,S0,_), S0 = S ), M) :-
module_call_qualified(M, GRBody, GRBody1).

He does not compile (\+)/1, makes it a call to phrase/3.
You can check other Prolog systems, usually they call body
translation when they translate (\+)/1.

So people comment it out?

%% dcg_constr(\+ _). % 7.14.11 - not (existence implementation dep.)

LoL

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 4. Mai 2022 um 20:35:57 UTC+2:
> Woa! A moment of silence for Scryer Prolog.
> It has become irreversibly unuseable, even
> basic Prolog logic doesn't work anymore...
>
> What the heck are they doing? Tons of unification
> and char list tickets on GitHub. But elementary
> things like switch_on_term / switch_on_constant
>
> / put_unsafe_value are troubled by random numbers?

At least UWNs translation would be steadfast. Here you
see what is the difference between a steadfast, and
a non-steadfast translation:

Was running this test case:

p --> \+ q.
q --> {write('did you call me?'), nl}.

In Tau Prolog 0.3.2 (beta) I get:

p([a],[]).
false.

On the other hand SWI-Prolog gives me:

?- p([a],[]).
did you call me?
false.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2022 um 09:21:49 UTC+2:
> So I heard it through the grape wine, Scryer Prolog
> does not have DCG (\+)/1. Dang! So far ECLiPSe Prolog,
> SWI-Prolog, GNU Prolog, SICStus Prolog have it.
>
> Why is this so? UWNs code doesn't make any sense:
>
> dcg_cbody(\+ GRBody, S0, S, ( \+ phrase(GRBody1,S0,_), S0 = S ), M) :-
> module_call_qualified(M, GRBody, GRBody1).
>
> He does not compile (\+)/1, makes it a call to phrase/3.
> You can check other Prolog systems, usually they call body
> translation when they translate (\+)/1.
>
> So people comment it out?
>
> %% dcg_constr(\+ _). % 7.14.11 - not (existence implementation dep.)
>
> LoL
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 4. Mai 2022 um 20:35:57 UTC+2:
> > Woa! A moment of silence for Scryer Prolog.
> > It has become irreversibly unuseable, even
> > basic Prolog logic doesn't work anymore...
> >
> > What the heck are they doing? Tons of unification
> > and char list tickets on GitHub. But elementary
> > things like switch_on_term / switch_on_constant
> >
> > / put_unsafe_value are troubled by random numbers?

The SWI-Prolog behaviour is the steadfast one.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2022 um 09:52:29 UTC+2:
> At least UWNs translation would be steadfast. Here you
> see what is the difference between a steadfast, and
> a non-steadfast translation:
>
> Was running this test case:
>
> p --> \+ q.
> q --> {write('did you call me?'), nl}.
>
> In Tau Prolog 0.3.2 (beta) I get:
>
> p([a],[]).
> false.
>
> On the other hand SWI-Prolog gives me:
>
> ?- p([a],[]).
> did you call me?
> false.
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2022 um 09:21:49 UTC+2:
> > So I heard it through the grape wine, Scryer Prolog
> > does not have DCG (\+)/1. Dang! So far ECLiPSe Prolog,
> > SWI-Prolog, GNU Prolog, SICStus Prolog have it.
> >
> > Why is this so? UWNs code doesn't make any sense:
> >
> > dcg_cbody(\+ GRBody, S0, S, ( \+ phrase(GRBody1,S0,_), S0 = S ), M) :-
> > module_call_qualified(M, GRBody, GRBody1).
> >
> > He does not compile (\+)/1, makes it a call to phrase/3.
> > You can check other Prolog systems, usually they call body
> > translation when they translate (\+)/1.
> >
> > So people comment it out?
> >
> > %% dcg_constr(\+ _). % 7.14.11 - not (existence implementation dep.)
> >
> > LoL
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 4. Mai 2022 um 20:35:57 UTC+2:
> > > Woa! A moment of silence for Scryer Prolog.
> > > It has become irreversibly unuseable, even
> > > basic Prolog logic doesn't work anymore...
> > >
> > > What the heck are they doing? Tons of unification
> > > and char list tickets on GitHub. But elementary
> > > things like switch_on_term / switch_on_constant
> > >
> > > / put_unsafe_value are troubled by random numbers?

Maybe the phrase/3 translation grows out of the
desire to a) make the translation not cut transparent,
b) make the translation similar to the translation

of ordinary (\+)/1 which does lazy body conversion
for the meta variables in its argument. b) is some luxury
and a) is guaranteed because (\+)/1 enters the

translation result. Just check out:

p --> \+ (q, !, r).

It gets translated as, in SWI-Prolog:

?- listing(p/2).
p(A, B) :-
\+ ( q(A, C),
!,
D=C,
r(D, _)
),
B=A.

The result is also not cut transparent, since the cut ! is inside
(\+)/1. So cut transparency is not an issue. About b), you
could device a more intelligent DCG translation, which

can do this. i.e. when it sees no meta variables, do directly
a translation. Otherwise do a translation that amounts to
something lazy. Such optimizations are also available for

(\+)/1 outside of the DCG context. You can pre-compile the
body conversion, if you see that it is stable. This can give
quite some speed up to ordinary Prolog, i.e. case you

have complex (\+)/1 arguments.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2022 um 09:58:35 UTC+2:
> The SWI-Prolog behaviour is the steadfast one.
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2022 um 09:52:29 UTC+2:
> > At least UWNs translation would be steadfast. Here you
> > see what is the difference between a steadfast, and
> > a non-steadfast translation:
> >
> > Was running this test case:
> >
> > p --> \+ q.
> > q --> {write('did you call me?'), nl}.
> >
> > In Tau Prolog 0.3.2 (beta) I get:
> >
> > p([a],[]).
> > false.
> >
> > On the other hand SWI-Prolog gives me:
> >
> > ?- p([a],[]).
> > did you call me?
> > false.
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2022 um 09:21:49 UTC+2:
> > > So I heard it through the grape wine, Scryer Prolog
> > > does not have DCG (\+)/1. Dang! So far ECLiPSe Prolog,
> > > SWI-Prolog, GNU Prolog, SICStus Prolog have it.
> > >
> > > Why is this so? UWNs code doesn't make any sense:
> > >
> > > dcg_cbody(\+ GRBody, S0, S, ( \+ phrase(GRBody1,S0,_), S0 = S ), M) :-
> > > module_call_qualified(M, GRBody, GRBody1).
> > >
> > > He does not compile (\+)/1, makes it a call to phrase/3.
> > > You can check other Prolog systems, usually they call body
> > > translation when they translate (\+)/1.
> > >
> > > So people comment it out?
> > >
> > > %% dcg_constr(\+ _). % 7.14.11 - not (existence implementation dep.)
> > >
> > > LoL
> > > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 4. Mai 2022 um 20:35:57 UTC+2:
> > > > Woa! A moment of silence for Scryer Prolog.
> > > > It has become irreversibly unuseable, even
> > > > basic Prolog logic doesn't work anymore...
> > > >
> > > > What the heck are they doing? Tons of unification
> > > > and char list tickets on GitHub. But elementary
> > > > things like switch_on_term / switch_on_constant
> > > >
> > > > / put_unsafe_value are troubled by random numbers?

When it is 2022, but you are still living in 2013:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12758567/legitimate-uses-of-1

The question has two former answers from me. Stackoverflow didn't
allow me to delete them. Nobody else has answered, and you are
asking the wrong question.

I find that ECLiPSe Prolog, SWI-Prolog, GNU Prolog and SICStus
Prolog support it. They all are able to support (\+)/1 inside DCG.
You can also add Tau-Prolog to the list and a couple

of more Prolog systems. The (\+)/1 is nowadays part of PEG.

parsing expression grammar (PEG)
Not-predicate: !e
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsing_expression_grammar

It has million of uses, they are all legitimate.

Its also nicely explained:

The not-predicate expression !e succeeds if e fails and fails if e
succeeds, again consuming no input in either case.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2022 um 12:04:07 UTC+2:
> When it is 2022, but you are still living in 2013:
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12758567/legitimate-uses-of-1
>
> The question has two former answers from me. Stackoverflow didn't
> allow me to delete them. Nobody else has answered, and you are
> asking the wrong question.
>
> I find that ECLiPSe Prolog, SWI-Prolog, GNU Prolog and SICStus
> Prolog support it. They all are able to support (\+)/1 inside DCG.
> You can also add Tau-Prolog to the list and a couple
>
> of more Prolog systems. The (\+)/1 is nowadays part of PEG.
>
> parsing expression grammar (PEG)
> Not-predicate: !e
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsing_expression_grammar
>
> It has million of uses, they are all legitimate.

Looks like UWN is confusing GitHub with Facebook, with his up votes.
And sometimes UWN thinks its YouTube, with his down votes?

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2022 um 12:08:16 UTC+2:
> Its also nicely explained:
>
> The not-predicate expression !e succeeds if e fails and fails if e
> succeeds, again consuming no input in either case.
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2022 um 12:04:07 UTC+2:
> > When it is 2022, but you are still living in 2013:
> > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12758567/legitimate-uses-of-1
> >
> > The question has two former answers from me. Stackoverflow didn't
> > allow me to delete them. Nobody else has answered, and you are
> > asking the wrong question.
> >
> > I find that ECLiPSe Prolog, SWI-Prolog, GNU Prolog and SICStus
> > Prolog support it. They all are able to support (\+)/1 inside DCG.
> > You can also add Tau-Prolog to the list and a couple
> >
> > of more Prolog systems. The (\+)/1 is nowadays part of PEG.
> >
> > parsing expression grammar (PEG)
> > Not-predicate: !e
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsing_expression_grammar
> >
> > It has million of uses, they are all legitimate.

The declarative reading is relatively trivial.
Take this example from above:

p(A, B) :-
\+ q(A, _),
A = C,
r(C, B).

The declarative reading is as follows:

p(A, B) ←
¬ ∃D q(A, D) ∧
A = C ∧
r(C, B).

Its not really rocket science. But because its negation
as failure you might also need Clark Completion etc..

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2022 um 12:19:59 UTC+2:
> Looks like UWN is confusing GitHub with Facebook, with his up votes.
> And sometimes UWN thinks its YouTube, with his down votes?
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2022 um 12:08:16 UTC+2:
> > Its also nicely explained:
> >
> > The not-predicate expression !e succeeds if e fails and fails if e
> > succeeds, again consuming no input in either case.
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2022 um 12:04:07 UTC+2:
> > > When it is 2022, but you are still living in 2013:
> > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12758567/legitimate-uses-of-1
> > >
> > > The question has two former answers from me. Stackoverflow didn't
> > > allow me to delete them. Nobody else has answered, and you are
> > > asking the wrong question.
> > >
> > > I find that ECLiPSe Prolog, SWI-Prolog, GNU Prolog and SICStus
> > > Prolog support it. They all are able to support (\+)/1 inside DCG.
> > > You can also add Tau-Prolog to the list and a couple
> > >
> > > of more Prolog systems. The (\+)/1 is nowadays part of PEG.
> > >
> > > parsing expression grammar (PEG)
> > > Not-predicate: !e
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsing_expression_grammar
> > >
> > > It has million of uses, they are all legitimate.