Re: CLP(FD): what is necessary?
- From: vscosta@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 03:52:00 -0700 (PDT)
Hi!
Well, you have my support :). I'd actually suggest adding a prolog
flag to disable evaluation of generic terms outside eval.
Best
Vitor
On Mar 14, 8:31 am, Jan Wielemaker <j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2008-03-14, Bart Demoen <b...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:.
Joachim Schimpf wrote:
You can do it simply with a function, in ECLiPSe called eval/1
(implemented by predicate eval/2):
?- X = 1+2, Y is eval(X)*3.
This is type-clean and makes the intention clear.
I like that.
Nice indeed. If there is sufficient support, I'm happy to add eval(X) as
a function. Of course without dropping the normal evaluation.
--- Jan
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: CLP(FD): what is necessary?
- From: Jan Wielemaker
- Re: CLP(FD): what is necessary?
- References:
- CLP(FD): what is necessary?
- From: Wit Jakuczun
- Re: CLP(FD): what is necessary?
- From: Ulrich Neumerkel
- Re: CLP(FD): what is necessary?
- From: bart demoen
- Re: CLP(FD): what is necessary?
- From: A . L .
- Re: CLP(FD): what is necessary?
- From: bart demoen
- Re: CLP(FD): what is necessary?
- From: Joachim Schimpf
- Re: CLP(FD): what is necessary?
- From: Bart Demoen
- Re: CLP(FD): what is necessary?
- From: Jan Wielemaker
- CLP(FD): what is necessary?
- Prev by Date: Re: Unification
- Next by Date: Re: CLP(FD): what is necessary?
- Previous by thread: Re: CLP(FD): what is necessary?
- Next by thread: Re: CLP(FD): what is necessary?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|