🚀 go-pugleaf

          >In article <710@cresswell.quintus.UUCP>, ok@quintus.UUCP
          >(Richard A. O'Keefe) writes (on replaca in PROLOG):
          >
          >Oh dear oh dear oh dear oh dear.  Have you ever felt that
          >everything you have done for the last N years has been
          >futile?  Have you ever been telling people about the milk
          >and honey of the Promised Land, only to have them turn
          >around and say "What about leeks?  We had great leeks in
          >Egypt."
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
          Hmmmmm, Doesn't seem that sympathetic to the idea, but at
          least Dr. O'Keefe is keeping an open mind !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          Okay, okay, I agree that 'replaca' isn't such a good idea.  I
          forgot to make the old declarative test, and sure enough if
          it hard to imagine what reversing the fields (i.e.
          replaca(X,Y,[junk,b,c,d]), instead of replaca(junk,[a,b,c],Z)
          ) would mean declaratively.  Still, that is not quite what I
          was curious about.

               For example, suppose we had a destructive append.
          Obviously this cannot be implemented with respect to other
          PROLOG primitives, so the actual machine implementation could
          be make reversible.  (i.e. append([a,b,c],X,Y) would do what
          regular append does but append([a,b,c],[d],Z) would
          destructively bash [a,b,c] with [d] and store it in Z).

               Ah, but you reply, what would happen upon backtracking,
          or more importantly suppose the problem is append(A,B,C)
          where A = [a,b], and B = [c].  Well, we don't have to take
          destructive list bashing too seriously and could allow
          ourselves copies of A and B.  That would allow us to solve
          both the backtracking and A,B messed up pointer problem.
          Even in this case we would save some number of copies (length
          of B copies of A to be exact in "standard" append).

               But of course that is what Quintus (and every self
          respecting PROLOG) does - right?  Well, then aren't we
          allowing an okay form of destructive list bashing?  If this
          isn't okay - well, why not?

               This point not withstanding, what would be wrong with
          having a "fully" destructive append that would be used only
          in the situations without reversibility and backtracking.  So
          what if I save only a penny - what did Ben Franklin say about
          a penny in time .......

               I guess there is something more fundamental here.  There
          is a tension here between "the function soup" of LISP, and the
          comparative austerity of the (standard) PROLOG predicate
          library.  Implementation issues aside (for the moment), each
          approach has some merits, but PROLOG tends for force the
          programmer to sacrifice "simple decomposition" for
          efficiency.  What is "simple decomposition"?  Well, I better
          save that for my next note - stay tuned!

                                                        Edouard Lagache