Ah sorry I miss read. Not currently supported, it's a requested
feature from Prolog that I haven't gotten around to implementing.
David
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Daniel Stone wrote:
> I'm not sure I fully understand, I guess I'm looking for the equivalent to a
> sub query? When I tried t
I'm not sure I fully understand, I guess I'm looking for the equivalent to
a sub query? When I tried to implement this early, I naively perhaps tried
something like this:
(defn bars-for-foo
[?foo ?bars]
(l/== ?bars
(l/run* [?q]
(fooz ?foo ?q
This seems relevant: http://dev.cloju
There's no need to define the reverse relation - fooz can do it. Just
supply bar and leave the foo fresh.
David
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:26 PM, wrote:
> I think this is a dummy question, but wondering whether this is possible in
> core.logic?
>
> Lets say I have a set of relations
>
> (db-rel
I think this is a dummy question, but wondering whether this is possible in
core.logic?
Lets say I have a set of relations
(db-rel foo p)
(db-rel bar p)
(db-rel fooz p p2)
and facts
[foo 1]
[bar 2]
[fooz 2 1]
[bar 3]
[fooz 3 1]
See that the fooz relation is potentially describing bar as chil
