Article View: comp.lang.prolog
Article #1526Re: retract*all
From: Fergus James HENDERSON
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1992 06:18
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1992 06:18
18 lines
1221 bytes
1221 bytes
cduguay@lcraft.ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Claude Duguay) writes: >This may seem silly or I might be missing part of this conversation but >would it not be easier and just as portable to use a simpler >implementation of retractall/retract_all rather than creating elaborate >solutions to emulate compiler directives? The problem is a general one, so we want a general solution. retract_all is just one example, there are undoubtably many others. Also a user's implementation of retract_all may be much less efficient than the built-in implementation. -- Fergus Henderson fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU This .signature virus is a self-referential statement that is true - but you will only be able to consistently believe it if you copy it to your own .signature file!
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<9227516.20467@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!cs.mu.OZ.AU!munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU!fjhReferences:
<uLBXRB2w165w@lcraft.ersys.edmonton.ab.ca>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!cs.mu.OZ.AU!munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU!fjh From: fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus James HENDERSON) Subject: Re: retract*all Message-ID: <9227516.20467@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> Sender: news@cs.mu.OZ.AU Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia References: <uLBXRB2w165w@lcraft.ersys.edmonton.ab.ca> Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 06:18:27 GMT Lines: 18