Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!Germany.EU.net!Munich.Germany.EU.net!ecrc!acrab60!thom
From: thom@ecrc.de (Thom Fruehwirth)
Subject: Re: In defense of Prolog's dynamic typing
Message-ID: <Czry0o.48w@ecrc.de>
Sender: news@ecrc.de
Reply-To: thom@ecrc.de
Organization: European Computer-Industry Research Centre GmbH.
References: <3b1jfp$9t@irisa.irisa.fr>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 1994 13:41:11 GMT
Lines: 18

I wrote:
|>     (G1,G2):goal :- G1:goal, G2:goal.
|>     bagof(X,G,L):goal :- X:A, G:goal, Z:list(A).

Jacques Noye replied:
>I am not too sure about what you want to show with this example. I would be
>much more interested in seeing, let us say, how one can add an argument to 
>any goal G (e.g. a "continuation" as when performing binarization).

I wanted to show that it is easy to type data that represents programs.

>...how one can add an argument to any goal G...
This is exactly my point! It is awkard and a pain to do this in Prolog because
of its syntax. It would work fine with e.g. feature terms. Once the syntax is
improved, the type system will follow. 

thom

