Re: CLP(FD) team for the ASP solver competition



On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:55:38 GMT, ulrich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Ulrich Neumerkel) wrote:

A.L. <alewando@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:26:40 GMT, ulrich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In create_shipment_/4 you have your own convention for terms to throw.
Consider throwing the standard terms (in those situations applicable).
The reason is that the standard terms are best understood - explained
in 13211-1 7.12.2 Error classification.

No. We have our own standards for exception format, and this format is
not restricted to Prolog, but spans over all other languages we are
using. Since Prolog is called from Java and Java is parsing and
processing Prolog exceptions, format of the exceptions must fit the
common standard.

From the outside for me, it is certainly impossible to judge that.

Some errors are very specific to Prolog - there it is particularly
interesting to consider the ISO model. ISO error terms look like this:

error(Error_term, Imp_def)

Where Error_term is defined by ISO, and Imp_def can be used by you.
So there is a prevision to put several conventions together.

I can do whatever I want on Prolog side, but if exception is
probagated outside of Prolog, then my freedom is restricted.
Therefore, my life is much easier if I restrict the format from very
beginning and translate whatever exception/error Prolog generates to
standard fromat as early as possible

A.L.
.