Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
No such thing as a small change

Re: (OT) Pushing inductive systems to their limit

by adrianh (Chancellor)
on Jul 30, 2005 at 18:47 UTC ( #479632=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to (OT) Pushing inductive systems to their limit

The unification as part of the language idea reminded me of matching in Lisp and Pop-11 (see chapter 7 of the Pop-11 Primer] and chapter 19 of On Lisp). Not exactly what you're talking about but might be worth a look.

Consider how unification works. First, if a particular item has a value we say it is "bound" to that value. We can then unify two items if they fall under one of the following three conditions

Like the Var class in Perl and Prolog and Continuations... oh my! :-)

The main problem that I see is what happens when one tries to unify two conditionally bound objects? Should a junction be the result? Should the unification fail because we have nothing real to bind to? Should they only be allowed to unify iff they are identical? Is there any merit to this idea at all?

I don't see why it would be different from unification of "normal" unbound variables. The logic is the same, it's just the equality test that's different.

  • Comment on Re: (OT) Pushing inductive systems to their limit

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://479632]
and all is quiet...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others studying the Monastery: (4)
As of 2018-06-24 19:35 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    Should cpanminus be part of the standard Perl release?

    Results (126 votes). Check out past polls.