🚀 go-pugleaf

> >The main reason for compiling disjunctions is that it can speed up code
> >like
> >
> >	p(X) :-
> >	  (  X >= 0 ->
> >	     do_something_for_positive_X(X)
> >	  ;  do_something_for_negative_X(X)
> >	  ).
> >
> 
> No. The main reason for compiling disjunctions is to avoid to build a structure
> and metacall it. The improvement you mention is also significant, but nowhere as important as this.
> 
> --Micha

I was thinking about the alternative approach of compiling a disjunction
to a call of an auxiliary predicate:

P :- Q; R.       ==>	P :- dummy(...).

			dummy(...) :- Q.
			dummy(...) :- R.

where in place of ... you have to insert the variables occuring in Q and R, as
well as any information needed for handling cuts.

	Sorry about the confusion,

	Jens.
--
Internet: jensk@hpbeo82.bbn.hp.com    HPDESK : JENS_KILIAN%XU@HP1200
MausNet:  Jens Kilian @ BB                     KILIAN_JENS/HP1200_XU@hpbbi4
Phone: (0|+49)7031-14-4308            TELNET : 778-4308
Fax  : (0|+49)7031-14-2049
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the air to a bird, or the sea to a fish, so is contempt to the contemptible.