🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <512@taux01.UUCP>, shahaf@taux01.UUCP (Shahaf Moshe) writes:
> The program looks like:
> 
> map(Function,Network) :-
> 			generate(Function,Network),
> 			test(Network).
> test(Network) :-
> 		lemma(Network,StopCondition),
> 		!(map).	    %this cut aborts the process.
> 
In that case, why not just code it as

	map(Function, Network) :-
		generate(Function, Network),
		test(Network),
		!.

	test(Network) :-
		lemma(Network, StopCondition).

More generally, suppose that you had several cases:

	test(Network) :-
		lemma(Network, ~~~),
		!(map(_,_)),
		p(...).
	...
	test(Network) :-
		lemma(Network, ~~~),
		!(map(_,_)),
		q(...).

Then you could recast this as

	map(Function, Network) :-
		generate(Function, Network),
		test(Network, Continuation),
		!,
		finish(Continuation, ...).

	finish(p, ...) :-
		p(...).
	...
	finish(q, ...) :-
		q(...).

	test(Network, p) :-
		lemma(Network, ~~~).
	...
	test(Network, q) :-
		lemma(Network, ~~~).

The basic idea is to redesign your "test" code so that it breaks into
three pieces: before-the-cut, the ancestral cut, and after-the-cut,
and then unfold the call to it so that the cut is exposed in "map".