Hi Alex,
On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 9:53 PM Alexander Burger wrote:
>
> > > > : (? (factorial @X 120))
> > > > -> NIL
> > >
>
> > How should be declared factorial primitive to be compatible with reverse
> > lookup?
>
> I have not tried. How is it in real Prolog?
>
In modern prolog you use this form
On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 6:27 PM Alexander Burger
wrote:
>
> Could not resist. I elaborated a little :)
>
> If we define '+' as
>
>(be + (@A @B @C)
> (^ @C (+ @A @B)) T )
>
>(be + (@A @B @C)
> (^ @B (- @C @A)) T )
>
>(be + (@A @B @C)
> (^ @A (- @C @B))
Hello,
I'm trying to build pil21 in a amd64 debian linux, I've tried pil21-12 and
pil21.tgz, both fails when making (cd src; make) with the error message
"error: expected relocatable expression .quad (SymTab+8)" in
different lines, for example:
picolisp.s:152966:8 error: expected relocatable exp
Hi pd,
> > The environments are nested association lists, with numbers for the levels
> > and
> > then the symbols for the values at these levels.
>
> and levels are related to backtracking somehow?
Yes. When looking up values for symbols, the symbols at individual levels are
unified with constan
