Righto, I'll add this to the discussion.
On Thursday, 15 March 2012 21:53:51 UTC, David Nolen wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Sean Corfield wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Baishampayan Ghose
>> wrote:
>> > There is run, but `run` takes an extra argument `n` and will solv
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Sean Corfield wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Baishampayan Ghose
> wrote:
> > There is run, but `run` takes an extra argument `n` and will solve for
> > only `n` results while `run*` solves for all.
>
> Ah, OK. That makes sense. Perhaps that could be add
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
> There is run, but `run` takes an extra argument `n` and will solve for
> only `n` results while `run*` solves for all.
Ah, OK. That makes sense. Perhaps that could be added to the primer?
(just curious: why not run-all?)
> Also, core.l
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Sean Corfield
> wrote:
> > And why is it run* and not run?
>
> There is run, but `run` takes an extra argument `n` and will solve for
> only `n` results while `run*` solves for all.
>
> Also, core.logic
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Sean Corfield wrote:
> And why is it run* and not run?
There is run, but `run` takes an extra argument `n` and will solve for
only `n` results while `run*` solves for all.
Also, core.logic is essentially a faithful port of miniKanren and
there is a lot of value i
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 1:28 PM, David Nolen wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Sean Corfield
> wrote:
>> (require '[clojure.core.logic :as ?])
>>
>> (?/run [q] ;; instead of run*
>> (?/cons 1 q (cons 1 [2 3]))) ;; instead of (conso 1 q (cons 1 [2 3]))
>
> That's a perfectly valid way to
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:28 PM, David Nolen wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Sean Corfield wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:21 PM, David Nolen
>> wrote:
>> > It has nothing to do w/ qualified or not qualified, namespaces or
>> anything
>> > else. In some programs you may want to
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Sean Corfield wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:21 PM, David Nolen
> wrote:
> > It has nothing to do w/ qualified or not qualified, namespaces or
> anything
> > else. In some programs you may want to freely mix functions and
> relations.
>
> But that's what name
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:21 PM, David Nolen wrote:
> It has nothing to do w/ qualified or not qualified, namespaces or anything
> else. In some programs you may want to freely mix functions and relations.
But that's what namespaces are for in Clojure, yes?
Seems like this would be equally clea
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Sean Corfield wrote:
> In other words, you want access to both unqualified cons and conso,
> rest and resto etc in the same code? Yet core.logic overrides == and
> so you either have to namespace that or exclude it (the examples seem
> to do the latter) which seems
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Sean Corfield wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:49 AM, David Nolen
> wrote:
> >> > It's a convention from The Reasoned Schemer. It's just an easy way to
> >> > differentiate goals from regular functions.
>
> What's the rationale in TRS for that? (and "conde") Li
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:49 AM, David Nolen wrote:
>> > It's a convention from The Reasoned Schemer. It's just an easy way to
>> > differentiate goals from regular functions.
What's the rationale in TRS for that? (and "conde") Like Phil (and no
doubt others) it seems an odd convention, without
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Phil Hagelberg wrote:
> David Nolen writes:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Daniel Gagnon >> wrote:
> >
> > Could this tutorial explain the foremost question people have
> > when seeing core.logic: why is o appened to the names of all
> > tho
David Nolen writes:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Daniel Gagnon > wrote:
>
> Could this tutorial explain the foremost question people have
> when seeing core.logic: why is o appened to the names of all
> those functions?
>
>
> It's a convention from The Reasoned Schemer. It's ju
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Daniel Gagnon wrote:
> Could this tutorial explain the foremost question people have when seeing
> core.logic: why is o appened to the names of all those functions?
It's a convention from The Reasoned Schemer. It's just an easy way to
differentiate goals from re
Could this tutorial explain the foremost question people have when seeing
core.logic: why is o appened to the names of all those functions?
--
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
N
amazing stuff guys!!!
Jim
On 14/03/12 19:00, David Nolen wrote:
Thanks to Edmund Jackson we have a new primer for core.logic:
https://github.com/clojure/core.logic/wiki/A-Core.logic-Primer
Feedback appreciated!
David
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Group
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Milton Silva wrote:
> This primer is a good introduction to core.logic operators. What I think
> is missing is a tutorial that answers these questions:
>
> What type of problems does core.logic excel at solving?
> How do you solve problems with core.logic?
> How d
This primer is a good introduction to core.logic operators. What I think is
missing is a tutorial that answers these questions:
What type of problems does core.logic excel at solving?
How do you solve problems with core.logic?
How does it enable simplicity? (Rich said in "simple made easy" that
Hi Thorsten,
Thanks for reading and the great feedback. In response, yes lvars
introduced by fresh stay 'inside' the run* which only returns the query
lvar. Your other comments are 100% correct and I will update the document
to reflect them.
Thanks again,
Edmund
On Thursday, 15 March 2
On 03/14/2012 08:00 PM, David Nolen wrote:
Thanks to Edmund Jackson we have a new primer for core.logic:
https://github.com/clojure/core.logic/wiki/A-Core.logic-Primer
Feedback appreciated!
Hi!
Does a run* expression evaluate to only the query-variable, while lvars
introduced with fresh stay
>
>
>> Dan, you probably read that recently about Datalog, while you were
> reviewing Datomic. Ain't that right? :)
>
>
I didn't check out Datomic yet. I'll do that soon.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send emai
On Wednesday, March 14, 2012, Dan wrote:
>
> David Nolen wrote:
>
>> Thanks to Edmund Jackson we have a new primer for core.logic:
>> https://github.com/clojure/core.logic/wiki/A-Core.logic-Primer
>
>
> [...] I think you should say a word about prolog and mention that unlike
> it core.logic isn't
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Linus Ericsson
wrote:
> :dependencies [[org.clojure/clojure "1.3.0"]
> [core.logic "0.6.1-SNAPSHOT"]]
You want: [org.clojure/core.logic "0.6.7"]
http://dev.clojure.org/display/design/Where+Did+Clojure.Contrib+Go has
a link to Maven Central versions of all the c
2012/3/14 David Nolen
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Daniel Gagnon wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 3:00 PM, David Nolen wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks to Edmund Jackson we have a new primer for core.logic:
>>> https://github.com/clojure/core.logic/wiki/A-Core.logic-Primer
>>>
>>> Feedback app
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Daniel Gagnon wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 3:00 PM, David Nolen wrote:
>
>> Thanks to Edmund Jackson we have a new primer for core.logic:
>> https://github.com/clojure/core.logic/wiki/A-Core.logic-Primer
>>
>> Feedback appreciated!
>>
>> David
>>
>
> It's
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 3:00 PM, David Nolen wrote:
> Thanks to Edmund Jackson we have a new primer for core.logic:
> https://github.com/clojure/core.logic/wiki/A-Core.logic-Primer
>
> Feedback appreciated!
>
> David
>
It's pretty good and I think it's very accessible. If you compare to Learn
Pr
Thanks to Edmund Jackson we have a new primer for core.logic:
https://github.com/clojure/core.logic/wiki/A-Core.logic-Primer
Feedback appreciated!
David
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@goo
28 matches
Mail list logo
