Re: The Art of Prolog -- 1986 vs. 1994
- From: Cameron Hughes <logicworld@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:53:52 GMT
If you can make the adjustment to logic programming, recursion,
backtracking, anonymous variables, etc., then the minor syntax differences between The Art of Prolog 1986 vs. 1994 won't be an issue.
certainly,
Cameron Hughes
Greg Buchholz wrote:
I'm thinking of buying a first edition version of "The Art of Prolog", since I can get it for about one-tenth the price. The blurb on the MIT website ( http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=8327 ) mentions than in the second version...
Part II, The Prolog Language, has been modified to be compatible with the new Prolog standard.
...As a beginner, will this throw me off? Has Prolog changed much in the past 20 years? I'm currently using SWI and the online "Learn Prolog Now!" by Blackburn, Bos, and Striegnitz, and was hoping to get another book to supplement. Thoughts?
Thanks,
Greg Buchholz
.
- References:
- The Art of Prolog -- 1986 vs. 1994
- From: Greg Buchholz
- The Art of Prolog -- 1986 vs. 1994
- Prev by Date: Re: sublist replacement
- Next by Date: Re: java calling prolog
- Previous by thread: Re: The Art of Prolog -- 1986 vs. 1994
- Next by thread: Battleships
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|