On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Austin Haas wrote:
>
> Thanks! I had just finished making similar changes. It was a good exercise
> and I'm glad to be able to compare code.
>
> A couple of questions:
>
> 1. Why is there no case for unifying a Datom with another Datom?
>
Oversight. I added Datomi
Thanks! I had just finished making similar changes. It was a good exercise and
I'm glad to be able to compare code.
A couple of questions:
1. Why is there no case for unifying a Datom with another Datom?
2. Why aren't multimethods used for dispatching to the appropriate unification
implementa
I've updated the experimental core.logic Datomic support so that you can
unify PersistentVector and Datoms again. In a real system I'd probably
recommend providing your own tuple type that does not implement Sequential
for doing unification with Datoms.
David
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Aus
Ok, thanks, I'll try to get it to work with PersistentVector.
I just started looking at core.logic's internals, and I'm still fairly new to
Clojure, so everything is a little fuzzy. I took Sequential for granted, since
that is referenced in the existing code.
Thanks for the help.
-austin
--
The dispatching mechanism was more trouble than it was worth but we did
lose some flexibility. Do you really need to unify Sequential or is
unifying with a concrete type like PersistentVector work well enough for
your use case?
David
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 2:01 AM, Austin Haas wrote:
>
> The d
