Thank you. The thing is that when talking about the semantic of Prolog,
one can choose any set as the semantic domain to start, and then a reason
is given for choosing the Herbrand universe.
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:23:00 +0200, Benja Fallenstein
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Cristian,
On
Hi Cristian,
On Dec 30, 2007 6:10 PM, Cristian Baboi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I don't get it :
>
> (s a1 a2 ... at) must be the value of A in the semantic domain. Let call
> that value a.
> Then how can one know if a was built with (s a1 a2 ... at) and not with
> (egg b1 b2) ?
Because th
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:13:47 +0200, Jonathan Cast
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 30 Dec 2007, at 11:10 AM, Cristian Baboi wrote:
In section 4.3.3., chapter 4: Structured types and the semantics of
pattern-matching, by S.Peyton Jones and Philip Wadler, there is this
equation:
Eval[[\(s p
On 30 Dec 2007, at 11:10 AM, Cristian Baboi wrote:
In section 4.3.3., chapter 4: Structured types and the semantics of
pattern-matching, by S.Peyton Jones and Philip Wadler, there is
this equation:
Eval[[\(s p1 p2 ... pt).E]] (s a1 a2 ...at) = Eval[[\p1 ... \pt.E]]
a1 ... at
The text s
In section 4.3.3., chapter 4: Structured types and the semantics of
pattern-matching, by S.Peyton Jones and Philip Wadler, there is this
equation:
Eval[[\(s p1 p2 ... pt).E]] (s a1 a2 ...at) = Eval[[\p1 ... \pt.E]] a1 ...
at
The text say:
"To apply \(s p1 ... pt).E to an argument A we fi
