Article View: comp.lang.prolog
Article #3739Re: Stupid Question about UNH Prolog
From: Richard A. O'Keefe
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1988 04:15
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1988 04:15
13 lines
1265 bytes
1265 bytes
In article <7505@well.UUCP> jax@well.UUCP (Jack J. Woehr) reports that >foo(1). foo(2). foo(3). foobar(X,Y) :- foo(X), !, foo(Y). yields the answers (X,Y) = (3,3), (3,1), (3,2), (3,3), but that >goobar(X,Y) :- goo(X), !, goo(Y). goo(1). goo(2). goo(3). yields the answers (X,Y) = (1,1), (1,2), (1,3) and asks > Is UNH Prolog broken or am I? You should get the same answers from both. However, the "foo" version looks suspiciously as though there is an additional clause foo(3) at the front. Are you sure you tried this in an empty Prolog system? If starting a fresh copy of Prolog, entering those clauses, and verifying with the aid of listing/1 that those are the _only_ clauses for foo/1 and foobaz/2 produces the result claimed, there is indeed a mistake.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<606@quintus.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!decwrl!sun!quintus!okReferences:
<7505@well.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!decwrl!sun!quintus!ok From: ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog Subject: Re: Stupid Question about UNH Prolog Keywords: UNH,cut,tarsiers Message-ID: <606@quintus.UUCP> Date: 31 Oct 88 04:15:08 GMT References: <7505@well.UUCP> Sender: news@quintus.UUCP Reply-To: ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Inc. Lines: 13