Re: Small, Fast Prolog in Lisp?
From: Christopher Browne (cbbrowne_at_acm.org)
Date: 08/23/04
- Next message: R Kym Horsell: "Re: Help with Peg Solitaire 15 hole triangle version"
- Previous message: jspauli_at_gravity.phys.uwm.edu: "Help with Peg Solitaire 15 hole triangle version"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 23 Aug 2004 03:52:40 GMT
Oops! Cesar Rabak <crabak@acm.org> was seen spray-painting on a wall:
> Yes. Todd's question seems to be why a Prolog implementation written
> in (say) C is not an emulator either or why a Prolog emulator
> written in Lisp cannot be called an implementation.
The thing about both of these "chunks of code" is that neither are
intended as full implementations of Prolog. They don't comply with
the ISO standard; they don't have the "fullness" of Prolog syntax.
What they really represent are embeddings of _part_ of Prolog into a
Lisp system.
That's pretty different from SWI-Prolog or GNU-Prolog, both of which
implement WAMs (Warren Abstract Machines) with "real" Prolog syntax.
I can't see it being impossible to implement a "full-fledged" Prolog
in Lisp; it may even have been done. But these systems _aren't_
full-bore Prolog systems.
-- (reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.gultn" "@" "enworbbc")) http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/emacs.html "well, take it from an old hand: the only reason it would be easier to program in C is that you can't easily express complex problems in C, so you don't." -- Erik Naggum, comp.lang.lisp
- Next message: R Kym Horsell: "Re: Help with Peg Solitaire 15 hole triangle version"
- Previous message: jspauli_at_gravity.phys.uwm.edu: "Help with Peg Solitaire 15 hole triangle version"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
