Re: negotiation by failure- list operations
- From: "Brian Hulley" <brianh@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 15 Jun 2005 04:23:59 -0700
Nameless wrote:
> Isn't this just a question of supplying a 'catch-all'
> clause to delete1/3?
>
> delete1(X,L1,L2) :-
> delete(X,L1,L2).
> delete1(_,_,_).
>
On the right track, but:
delete1(X,L1,L2) :-
delete(X,L1,L2),!. % necessary (red) cut
delete1(_,L,L). % Preserve original list in this case
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: negotiation by failure- list operations
- From: Nameless
- Re: negotiation by failure- list operations
- References:
- negotiation by failure- list operations
- From: ne0
- Re: negotiation by failure- list operations
- From: Nameless
- negotiation by failure- list operations
- Prev by Date: Re: cross-module asserting/retracting - is this a good thing?
- Next by Date: Re: negotiation by failure- list operations
- Previous by thread: Re: negotiation by failure- list operations
- Next by thread: Re: negotiation by failure- list operations
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|