Casper <casp...@gmail.com> writes:
> For me that leads to the question, how do we then define the relationship
> 'descendant' (which would be the generalisation of child, grandchild etc)?
>
> (defn child [x y]
> (parent y x))
Ok, so you have a `child' relation already, so this should be easy (but
it's not tested):
(defn descendant [d a]
(conde
[(child d a)]
[(fresh [p]
(child d p)
(descendant p a))]))
So d is a descendant of a if
- d is a child of a, or
- there is some p who is the parent of d and a descendant of a.
I think instead of `conde' you can use `conda' here, because when the
first clause succeeds the second one cannot succeed and doesn't need to
be tested.
Bye,
Tassilo
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
