Re: CLP(FD): what is necessary?
- From: A.L. <alewando@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:50:36 -0500
On 14 Mar 2008 13:31:56 GMT, Jan Wielemaker <jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On 2008-03-14, vscosta@xxxxxxxxx <vscosta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi!
Well, you have my support :). I'd actually suggest adding a prolog
flag to disable evaluation of generic terms outside eval.
Added. No flag. I just agree this is better style. When Bart&Tom
finish their type checker we can flag the is/2 type errors and people
can wrap the victim variables in eval(Var).
Flags changing runtime behaviour are far more evil than evaluating
terms under is/2 :-)
OK, but what standard says about this? Does it say at all?...
A.L.
.
- 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
- Re: CLP(FD): what is necessary?
- From: vscosta
- Re: CLP(FD): what is necessary?
- From: Jan Wielemaker
- CLP(FD): what is necessary?
- Prev by Date: Re: CLP(FD): what is necessary?
- 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
|
|
