Re: GNU prolog is not so reliable as SWI-prolog
- From: Cesar Rabak <csrabak@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 12:06:55 -0300
newser.bbs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx escreveu:
The following codes is test in swi-prolog and can run smoothly .Did you read the GNU Prolog Error message and consulted with the users manual?
You can test that .
==========================================================
Welcome to SWI-Prolog (Multi-threaded, Version 5.2.13)
Copyright (c) 1990-2003 University of Amsterdam.
SWI-Prolog comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. This is free software,
and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions.
Please visit http://www.swi-prolog.org for details.
For help, use ?- help(Topic). or ?- apropos(Word).
1 ?- assertz((treat(0):-!)).
Yes
2 ?- assertz((treat(N):-!,write(' '),write(N),N1 is N-1,treat(N1))).
N = _G540
N1 = _G549
Yes
3 ?- treat(1000000).
=============================================
But the same codes' job just can't be finished in GNU prolog ,
You can try the following.
==============================================
GNU Prolog 1.2.16
By Daniel Diaz
Copyright (C) 1999-2002 Daniel Diaz
| ?- assertz((treat(0):-!)).
yes
| ?- assertz((treat(N):-!,write(' '),write(N),N1 is N-1,treat(N1))).
yes
| ?- treat(1000000).
==============================================
One reason that makes me trasferred from Turbo prolog is
the stack limitation . If a prolog of window version still gets
severe limited in the stack size , I don't think it worth my attention.
--
Cesar Rabak
.
- References:
- GNU prolog is not so reliable as SWI-prolog
- From: newser . bbs
- GNU prolog is not so reliable as SWI-prolog
- Prev by Date: [Simple] These sources are equivalent?
- Next by Date: Re: GNU prolog is not so reliable as SWI-prolog
- Previous by thread: Re: GNU prolog is not so reliable as SWI-prolog
- Next by thread: [Simple] These sources are equivalent?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|