🚀 go-pugleaf

bs30@GTE.COM (Bernard Silver) writes:

>The latest draft of the ISO Prolog standard has recently come out.
>One thing that caught my attention is the specified error behaviour 
>for the predicate arg/3.  We (the ANSI group) are interested in
>finding out how people use this predicate.

First,
Can the ISO people post a readable draft of the standard that they 
are proposing to this news group?

>The ISO draft specifies that arg(N,Term,Arg) (with N and Term
>instantiated) reports a range error if N is greater than the arity of
>Term.   In contrast, many existing Prologs just quietly fail in
>this situation.  Which do you prefer?  In particular, do your programs
>ever rely on the quiet failure to end a recursion?

If the ISO standard arg(N, Term, Arg) reports error when N is greater
than the arity, it is a nuisance. 

Then we cannot do 
  bagof(Arg, N^arg(N, Term, Arg), Args).

or
 bagof(Arg, N^(positive_integer(N), arg(N, Term, Arg)), Args). 
  where positive_integer is
  positive_integer(1).
  positive_integer(N) :- positive_integer(N1), N is N1 + 1.

to get a list of args.


>If you believe in quiet failure, when should arg/3 raise an error?

>Is arg(-3,Term,Arg) ok?  What about arg(a,Term,Arg)?

      arg(-3, Term, Arg) is OK
while arg(a, Term, Arg) is NOT OK and should report as a error.

>We would appreciate any comments!

I agree with Richard that you should have a set of
principles to decided when a predicate should or should
not report a error.
The other alternative is post all the built-in predicates
and a list of questions like the one for arg and let
everybody vote depending on what they feel should
be the behavior of the built-in. With this mechanism
the standard behavior of each predicate is determined
by majority vote. 

I think both approaches are fine by me. Though the second
approach fits in more with american style of democracy. :-)

Dan Brahme
Texas Instruments