Re: redundancy
- From: Chip Eastham <hardmath@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 07:38:29 -0700
On Oct 22, 11:40 pm, Chip Eastham <hardm...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 22, 2:53 pm, bart demoen <b...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:19:35 -0700, sbaker8688 wrote:
That would bring down the count to 4, rather
than 8, e.g. by replacing X<>Y with X < Y.
How does this work, Chip? Doesn't work on SWI. Is it a Visual Prolog
thing?
<> would be \== in SWI
< would be @< in SWI
Cheers
Bart Demoen
Yes, it would be @< (standard sort order) in reasonably
compliant Prolog implementations. I don't have Visual
Prolog 5.2 handy to test with, and my recollection may be
faulty. But with the strong typing of Turbo/PDC/Visual
Prolog, perhaps the relational operator < was used for
comparisons in all the primitive datatypes (or domains
in the PDC parlance). I don't remember @< being used
at all in the Turbo Prolog implementation.
regards, chip
I checked the current version of Visual Prolog (7.1),
and while the compiler complained about many obscure
things (related to getting the declarations right),
I fixed those, and there was never a complaint about
using < to compare two symbols (which is the PDC
equivalent for atoms, ie. strings stored in the
form of a reference to table values). So most
likely this would have worked in 5.2 as well.
--c
.
- References:
- redundancy
- From: omargamil
- Re: redundancy
- From: Chip Eastham
- Re: redundancy
- From: sbaker8688
- Re: redundancy
- From: bart demoen
- Re: redundancy
- From: Chip Eastham
- redundancy
- Prev by Date: Changing the default search behavior?
- Next by Date: Re: Changing the default search behavior?
- Previous by thread: Re: redundancy
- Next by thread: Re: redundancy
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
