Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> writes:

> Which had these people behind it, potential users of it:

However, not everyone in this list supports everything in the document.
And the document is from 14 years ago: Back then, important constructs
such as if_/3, tfilter/3 etc. were not even found, and the quest for
better constructs was quite stalled. We can do better today than many of
us thought possible in 2008, or even in 2016: For example, just in these
last 6 years, we got 4 new Prolog systems (Scryer, Trealla, Tau and
ichiban/prolog) where double_quotes is set to chars by default. Who
thought that this was possible in 2008? I think even in 2012 or even
later, implementors advocated for JavaScript-style "strings" in Prolog
and even added them to their systems, until a new representation
pioneered by Scryer Prolog made chars viable in newer systems. forall/2
probably likewise seemed necessary in 2008, but does it still seem so
today? A better, not yet found construct, could likewise make it
obsolete, just like JavaScript-style strings have now become obsolete.

> Make a GitHub search, you find many places where it is used
> by some Prolog programmer. Its kind of staple food.

You will find a lot on GitHub, a lot of Java and C code too. It could
make for an interesting analysis, however I find decisions based on such
statistics subject to certain doubts: For example, is a construct that
violates elementary logical properties good because it appears in a lot
of programs? Or does this rather show that many programs could be
improved by removing this construct entirely from the language?

All the best,
Markus

--
comp.lang.prolog FAQ: http://www.logic.at/prolog/faq/
The Power of Prolog: https://www.metalevel.at/prolog

Well the error is always the programmer, in this
case the programmer doesnt know that in Prolog
bound variables have to be „ purified“ i.e. given

different names. For example spinning your nonsense
further far ahead, you could also demand to ban
findall from Prolog, because:

?- findall(X, member(X, [1,4,2], L).
L = [1, 4, 2]

X is not instantiated in the answer, so by monotonicity,
we should be able to instantiate it, but it goes wrong:

?- X = 3, findall(X, member(X, [1,4,2], L).
fail

Separating away variable names is bread and butter in
theorem proving. I dont think double_quotes chars value
is a contribution here, neither if_ etc.

I dont find any proposal for an improvement either in
the new Prolog systems like Trealla, Scryer, etc..

I only find turds on GitHub all over the place forbid
this forbid that despite there is not a single outcry
by other Prolog programmers that variable

purification is not a body convesion step in ISO standard
Prolog. Write please an amendmend to the ISO standard
or define a new language with automatic variable

separation and then we can talk again.

P.S.: Lambda Prolog can do it. But you would write
findall invocation slightly differently.

Markus Triska schrieb am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2022 um 19:21:23 UTC+2:
> Mostowski Collapse <burs...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Which had these people behind it, potential users of it:
> However, not everyone in this list supports everything in the document.
> And the document is from 14 years ago: Back then, important constructs
> such as if_/3, tfilter/3 etc. were not even found, and the quest for
> better constructs was quite stalled. We can do better today than many of
> us thought possible in 2008, or even in 2016: For example, just in these
> last 6 years, we got 4 new Prolog systems (Scryer, Trealla, Tau and
> ichiban/prolog) where double_quotes is set to chars by default. Who
> thought that this was possible in 2008? I think even in 2012 or even
> later, implementors advocated for JavaScript-style "strings" in Prolog
> and even added them to their systems, until a new representation
> pioneered by Scryer Prolog made chars viable in newer systems. forall/2
> probably likewise seemed necessary in 2008, but does it still seem so
> today? A better, not yet found construct, could likewise make it
> obsolete, just like JavaScript-style strings have now become obsolete.
> > Make a GitHub search, you find many places where it is used
> > by some Prolog programmer. Its kind of staple food.
> You will find a lot on GitHub, a lot of Java and C code too. It could
> make for an interesting analysis, however I find decisions based on such
> statistics subject to certain doubts: For example, is a construct that
> violates elementary logical properties good because it appears in a lot
> of programs? Or does this rather show that many programs could be
> improved by removing this construct entirely from the language?
>
> All the best,
> Markus
>
> --
> comp.lang.prolog FAQ: http://www.logic.at/prolog/faq/
> The Power of Prolog: https://www.metalevel.at/prolog

In Lambda Prolog you could define a findall
by accempting a higher order closure using
some lambda binder, here I am using (\)/2 for

this purpose. findall would only have arity 2:

?- findall(X\member(X, [1,4,2]), L).
L = [1, 4, 2]
?- X = 3, findall(X\member(X, [1,4,2]), L).
X = 3,
L = [1, 4, 2]

But you have to rethink your logic programming
language from ground up. You might need a different
read term, or some post processing of read term.

Lambda Prolog does all that. But posting turds on GitHub
does nothing. It only shows that you are ignorant about
possible solutions that exist since Alonzo Church,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alonzo_Church

The solutions are older than the 50 years of prolog.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2022 um 23:50:20 UTC+2:
> Well the error is always the programmer, in this
> case the programmer doesnt know that in Prolog
> bound variables have to be „ purified“ i.e. given
>
> different names. For example spinning your nonsense
> further far ahead, you could also demand to ban
> findall from Prolog, because:
>
> ?- findall(X, member(X, [1,4,2], L).
> L = [1, 4, 2]
>
> X is not instantiated in the answer, so by monotonicity,
> we should be able to instantiate it, but it goes wrong:
>
> ?- X = 3, findall(X, member(X, [1,4,2], L).
> fail
>
> Separating away variable names is bread and butter in
> theorem proving. I dont think double_quotes chars value
> is a contribution here, neither if_ etc.
>
> I dont find any proposal for an improvement either in
> the new Prolog systems like Trealla, Scryer, etc..
>
> I only find turds on GitHub all over the place forbid
> this forbid that despite there is not a single outcry
> by other Prolog programmers that variable
>
> purification is not a body convesion step in ISO standard
> Prolog. Write please an amendmend to the ISO standard
> or define a new language with automatic variable
>
> separation and then we can talk again.
>
> P.S.: Lambda Prolog can do it. But you would write
> findall invocation slightly differently.
> Markus Triska schrieb am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2022 um 19:21:23 UTC+2:
> > Mostowski Collapse <burs...@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > Which had these people behind it, potential users of it:
> > However, not everyone in this list supports everything in the document.
> > And the document is from 14 years ago: Back then, important constructs
> > such as if_/3, tfilter/3 etc. were not even found, and the quest for
> > better constructs was quite stalled. We can do better today than many of
> > us thought possible in 2008, or even in 2016: For example, just in these
> > last 6 years, we got 4 new Prolog systems (Scryer, Trealla, Tau and
> > ichiban/prolog) where double_quotes is set to chars by default. Who
> > thought that this was possible in 2008? I think even in 2012 or even
> > later, implementors advocated for JavaScript-style "strings" in Prolog
> > and even added them to their systems, until a new representation
> > pioneered by Scryer Prolog made chars viable in newer systems. forall/2
> > probably likewise seemed necessary in 2008, but does it still seem so
> > today? A better, not yet found construct, could likewise make it
> > obsolete, just like JavaScript-style strings have now become obsolete.
> > > Make a GitHub search, you find many places where it is used
> > > by some Prolog programmer. Its kind of staple food.
> > You will find a lot on GitHub, a lot of Java and C code too. It could
> > make for an interesting analysis, however I find decisions based on such
> > statistics subject to certain doubts: For example, is a construct that
> > violates elementary logical properties good because it appears in a lot
> > of programs? Or does this rather show that many programs could be
> > improved by removing this construct entirely from the language?
> >
> > All the best,
> > Markus
> >
> > --
> > comp.lang.prolog FAQ: http://www.logic.at/prolog/faq/
> > The Power of Prolog: https://www.metalevel.at/prolog

Corr.: Currently in Prolog we would have:

?- X = 3, findall(X, member(X, [1,4,2]), L).
X = 3,
L = []

In as far forall/2 has a similar „problem“
which is usually taken care by the programmer,
similarly like the programmer watches

that his findalls are purified according to the
use case he has. Etc.. etc… But compared
to Lambda Prolog ordinary prolog is

more primitive and has primafacie some inference
rules missing, although a lot can be compensated by
meta interpreters, little theorem provers, little

new languages written in Prolog itself. But these little
tools might be impure. Some lamda Prolog through its
HOAS can enforce meta circular purity. Here I

totally agree that Prolog lacks this feature. But you cannot
add this feature by forbidding things as you do. Compared
to Lamda Prolog your approach of turding Prolog

by disrupting GitHub with crazy comments and
no contribution has zero impact on improving the
situation. Its just nonsense.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 13. Juli 2022 um 00:01:29 UTC+2:
> In Lambda Prolog you could define a findall
> by accempting a higher order closure using
> some lambda binder, here I am using (\)/2 for
>
> this purpose. findall would only have arity 2:
>
> ?- findall(X\member(X, [1,4,2]), L).
> L = [1, 4, 2]
> ?- X = 3, findall(X\member(X, [1,4,2]), L).
> X = 3,
> L = [1, 4, 2]
> But you have to rethink your logic programming
> language from ground up. You might need a different
> read term, or some post processing of read term.
>
> Lambda Prolog does all that. But posting turds on GitHub
> does nothing. It only shows that you are ignorant about
> possible solutions that exist since Alonzo Church,
>
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alonzo_Church
>
> The solutions are older than the 50 years of prolog.
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2022 um 23:50:20 UTC+2:
> > Well the error is always the programmer, in this
> > case the programmer doesnt know that in Prolog
> > bound variables have to be „ purified“ i.e. given
> >
> > different names. For example spinning your nonsense
> > further far ahead, you could also demand to ban
> > findall from Prolog, because:
> >
> > ?- findall(X, member(X, [1,4,2], L).
> > L = [1, 4, 2]
> >
> > X is not instantiated in the answer, so by monotonicity,
> > we should be able to instantiate it, but it goes wrong:
> >
> > ?- X = 3, findall(X, member(X, [1,4,2], L).
> > fail
> >
> > Separating away variable names is bread and butter in
> > theorem proving. I dont think double_quotes chars value
> > is a contribution here, neither if_ etc.
> >
> > I dont find any proposal for an improvement either in
> > the new Prolog systems like Trealla, Scryer, etc..
> >
> > I only find turds on GitHub all over the place forbid
> > this forbid that despite there is not a single outcry
> > by other Prolog programmers that variable
> >
> > purification is not a body convesion step in ISO standard
> > Prolog. Write please an amendmend to the ISO standard
> > or define a new language with automatic variable
> >
> > separation and then we can talk again.
> >
> > P.S.: Lambda Prolog can do it. But you would write
> > findall invocation slightly differently.
> > Markus Triska schrieb am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2022 um 19:21:23 UTC+2:
> > > Mostowski Collapse <burs...@gmail.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > Which had these people behind it, potential users of it:
> > > However, not everyone in this list supports everything in the document.
> > > And the document is from 14 years ago: Back then, important constructs
> > > such as if_/3, tfilter/3 etc. were not even found, and the quest for
> > > better constructs was quite stalled. We can do better today than many of
> > > us thought possible in 2008, or even in 2016: For example, just in these
> > > last 6 years, we got 4 new Prolog systems (Scryer, Trealla, Tau and
> > > ichiban/prolog) where double_quotes is set to chars by default. Who
> > > thought that this was possible in 2008? I think even in 2012 or even
> > > later, implementors advocated for JavaScript-style "strings" in Prolog
> > > and even added them to their systems, until a new representation
> > > pioneered by Scryer Prolog made chars viable in newer systems. forall/2
> > > probably likewise seemed necessary in 2008, but does it still seem so
> > > today? A better, not yet found construct, could likewise make it
> > > obsolete, just like JavaScript-style strings have now become obsolete..
> > > > Make a GitHub search, you find many places where it is used
> > > > by some Prolog programmer. Its kind of staple food.
> > > You will find a lot on GitHub, a lot of Java and C code too. It could
> > > make for an interesting analysis, however I find decisions based on such
> > > statistics subject to certain doubts: For example, is a construct that
> > > violates elementary logical properties good because it appears in a lot
> > > of programs? Or does this rather show that many programs could be
> > > improved by removing this construct entirely from the language?
> > >
> > > All the best,
> > > Markus
> > >
> > > --
> > > comp.lang.prolog FAQ: http://www.logic.at/prolog/faq/
> > > The Power of Prolog: https://www.metalevel.at/prolog

Also the uses of forall/2 have increased in the past.
Some people use it as a replacement for failure driven loop:

?- G, C, fail; true.

They write it as:

?- forall(G, C).

It has the advantage/disadvantage that it signals
failure of C. Which the failure driven loop does not do.
You find it in the wild here:

main :-
forall(number_fizzbuzz_below_100(_, FizzBuzz),
(write(FizzBuzz), write('\n'))).

https://github.com/triska/clpz/issues/12

Its from some of your users of Scryer Prolog
and some of your users of CLP(Z). So I guess
you dont know who your users are?

Good luck with that…
You are Genius like Putin.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 13. Juli 2022 um 00:17:00 UTC+2:
> Corr.: Currently in Prolog we would have:
>
> ?- X = 3, findall(X, member(X, [1,4,2]), L).
> X = 3,
> L = []
>
> In as far forall/2 has a similar „problem“
> which is usually taken care by the programmer,
> similarly like the programmer watches
>
> that his findalls are purified according to the
> use case he has. Etc.. etc… But compared
> to Lambda Prolog ordinary prolog is
>
> more primitive and has primafacie some inference
> rules missing, although a lot can be compensated by
> meta interpreters, little theorem provers, little
>
> new languages written in Prolog itself. But these little
> tools might be impure. Some lamda Prolog through its
> HOAS can enforce meta circular purity. Here I
>
> totally agree that Prolog lacks this feature. But you cannot
> add this feature by forbidding things as you do. Compared
> to Lamda Prolog your approach of turding Prolog
>
> by disrupting GitHub with crazy comments and
> no contribution has zero impact on improving the
> situation. Its just nonsense.
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 13. Juli 2022 um 00:01:29 UTC+2:
> > In Lambda Prolog you could define a findall
> > by accempting a higher order closure using
> > some lambda binder, here I am using (\)/2 for
> >
> > this purpose. findall would only have arity 2:
> >
> > ?- findall(X\member(X, [1,4,2]), L).
> > L = [1, 4, 2]
> > ?- X = 3, findall(X\member(X, [1,4,2]), L).
> > X = 3,
> > L = [1, 4, 2]
> > But you have to rethink your logic programming
> > language from ground up. You might need a different
> > read term, or some post processing of read term.
> >
> > Lambda Prolog does all that. But posting turds on GitHub
> > does nothing. It only shows that you are ignorant about
> > possible solutions that exist since Alonzo Church,
> >
> > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alonzo_Church
> >
> > The solutions are older than the 50 years of prolog.
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2022 um 23:50:20 UTC+2:
> > > Well the error is always the programmer, in this
> > > case the programmer doesnt know that in Prolog
> > > bound variables have to be „ purified“ i.e. given
> > >
> > > different names. For example spinning your nonsense
> > > further far ahead, you could also demand to ban
> > > findall from Prolog, because:
> > >
> > > ?- findall(X, member(X, [1,4,2], L).
> > > L = [1, 4, 2]
> > >
> > > X is not instantiated in the answer, so by monotonicity,
> > > we should be able to instantiate it, but it goes wrong:
> > >
> > > ?- X = 3, findall(X, member(X, [1,4,2], L).
> > > fail
> > >
> > > Separating away variable names is bread and butter in
> > > theorem proving. I dont think double_quotes chars value
> > > is a contribution here, neither if_ etc.
> > >
> > > I dont find any proposal for an improvement either in
> > > the new Prolog systems like Trealla, Scryer, etc..
> > >
> > > I only find turds on GitHub all over the place forbid
> > > this forbid that despite there is not a single outcry
> > > by other Prolog programmers that variable
> > >
> > > purification is not a body convesion step in ISO standard
> > > Prolog. Write please an amendmend to the ISO standard
> > > or define a new language with automatic variable
> > >
> > > separation and then we can talk again.
> > >
> > > P.S.: Lambda Prolog can do it. But you would write
> > > findall invocation slightly differently.
> > > Markus Triska schrieb am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2022 um 19:21:23 UTC+2:
> > > > Mostowski Collapse <burs...@gmail.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Which had these people behind it, potential users of it:
> > > > However, not everyone in this list supports everything in the document.
> > > > And the document is from 14 years ago: Back then, important constructs
> > > > such as if_/3, tfilter/3 etc. were not even found, and the quest for
> > > > better constructs was quite stalled. We can do better today than many of
> > > > us thought possible in 2008, or even in 2016: For example, just in these
> > > > last 6 years, we got 4 new Prolog systems (Scryer, Trealla, Tau and
> > > > ichiban/prolog) where double_quotes is set to chars by default. Who
> > > > thought that this was possible in 2008? I think even in 2012 or even
> > > > later, implementors advocated for JavaScript-style "strings" in Prolog
> > > > and even added them to their systems, until a new representation
> > > > pioneered by Scryer Prolog made chars viable in newer systems. forall/2
> > > > probably likewise seemed necessary in 2008, but does it still seem so
> > > > today? A better, not yet found construct, could likewise make it
> > > > obsolete, just like JavaScript-style strings have now become obsolete.
> > > > > Make a GitHub search, you find many places where it is used
> > > > > by some Prolog programmer. Its kind of staple food.
> > > > You will find a lot on GitHub, a lot of Java and C code too. It could
> > > > make for an interesting analysis, however I find decisions based on such
> > > > statistics subject to certain doubts: For example, is a construct that
> > > > violates elementary logical properties good because it appears in a lot
> > > > of programs? Or does this rather show that many programs could be
> > > > improved by removing this construct entirely from the language?
> > > >
> > > > All the best,
> > > > Markus
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > comp.lang.prolog FAQ: http://www.logic.at/prolog/faq/
> > > > The Power of Prolog: https://www.metalevel.at/prolog

Also there are quite capable people in the SWI Prolog
discourse group, that where discussing forall/2
versus foreach/2, repeatedly showing some

deep understanding of the constructs, which I find
lacking if somebody critizises the construct based
on a usage error in the form

of lack of purification. That paints one into a corner
of not understanding the construct at all. Last but
not least s(CASP) starting with s(ASP),

have also found uses for some forms of forall/2.
Just read the papers follow the forums and
inspect the systems. forall/2 has

come to amazing new life. forall is also
not the worst name of the predicate, since it can
provide the so called bounded universal quantifier,

under certain circumstances you can tranlate it
(this is left as an exercise):

ALL(x):[A => B]

But I have recently started calling it Peano
implication, since Giuseppe Peano used the
following notation for it:

A =>x B

putting more emphasis on the underlying
implication than on the universally
bound variable.

Have Fun!

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 13. Juli 2022 um 01:02:47 UTC+2:
> Also the uses of forall/2 have increased in the past.
> Some people use it as a replacement for failure driven loop:
>
> ?- G, C, fail; true.
>
> They write it as:
>
> ?- forall(G, C).
>
> It has the advantage/disadvantage that it signals
> failure of C. Which the failure driven loop does not do.
> You find it in the wild here:
>
> main :-
> forall(number_fizzbuzz_below_100(_, FizzBuzz),
> (write(FizzBuzz), write('\n'))).
>
> https://github.com/triska/clpz/issues/12
>
> Its from some of your users of Scryer Prolog
> and some of your users of CLP(Z). So I guess
> you dont know who your users are?
>
> Good luck with that…
> You are Genius like Putin.
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 13. Juli 2022 um 00:17:00 UTC+2:
> > Corr.: Currently in Prolog we would have:
> >
> > ?- X = 3, findall(X, member(X, [1,4,2]), L).
> > X = 3,
> > L = []
> >
> > In as far forall/2 has a similar „problem“
> > which is usually taken care by the programmer,
> > similarly like the programmer watches
> >
> > that his findalls are purified according to the
> > use case he has. Etc.. etc… But compared
> > to Lambda Prolog ordinary prolog is
> >
> > more primitive and has primafacie some inference
> > rules missing, although a lot can be compensated by
> > meta interpreters, little theorem provers, little
> >
> > new languages written in Prolog itself. But these little
> > tools might be impure. Some lamda Prolog through its
> > HOAS can enforce meta circular purity. Here I
> >
> > totally agree that Prolog lacks this feature. But you cannot
> > add this feature by forbidding things as you do. Compared
> > to Lamda Prolog your approach of turding Prolog
> >
> > by disrupting GitHub with crazy comments and
> > no contribution has zero impact on improving the
> > situation. Its just nonsense.
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 13. Juli 2022 um 00:01:29 UTC+2:
> > > In Lambda Prolog you could define a findall
> > > by accempting a higher order closure using
> > > some lambda binder, here I am using (\)/2 for
> > >
> > > this purpose. findall would only have arity 2:
> > >
> > > ?- findall(X\member(X, [1,4,2]), L).
> > > L = [1, 4, 2]
> > > ?- X = 3, findall(X\member(X, [1,4,2]), L).
> > > X = 3,
> > > L = [1, 4, 2]
> > > But you have to rethink your logic programming
> > > language from ground up. You might need a different
> > > read term, or some post processing of read term.
> > >
> > > Lambda Prolog does all that. But posting turds on GitHub
> > > does nothing. It only shows that you are ignorant about
> > > possible solutions that exist since Alonzo Church,
> > >
> > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alonzo_Church
> > >
> > > The solutions are older than the 50 years of prolog.
> > > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2022 um 23:50:20 UTC+2:
> > > > Well the error is always the programmer, in this
> > > > case the programmer doesnt know that in Prolog
> > > > bound variables have to be „ purified“ i.e. given
> > > >
> > > > different names. For example spinning your nonsense
> > > > further far ahead, you could also demand to ban
> > > > findall from Prolog, because:
> > > >
> > > > ?- findall(X, member(X, [1,4,2], L).
> > > > L = [1, 4, 2]
> > > >
> > > > X is not instantiated in the answer, so by monotonicity,
> > > > we should be able to instantiate it, but it goes wrong:
> > > >
> > > > ?- X = 3, findall(X, member(X, [1,4,2], L).
> > > > fail
> > > >
> > > > Separating away variable names is bread and butter in
> > > > theorem proving. I dont think double_quotes chars value
> > > > is a contribution here, neither if_ etc.
> > > >
> > > > I dont find any proposal for an improvement either in
> > > > the new Prolog systems like Trealla, Scryer, etc..
> > > >
> > > > I only find turds on GitHub all over the place forbid
> > > > this forbid that despite there is not a single outcry
> > > > by other Prolog programmers that variable
> > > >
> > > > purification is not a body convesion step in ISO standard
> > > > Prolog. Write please an amendmend to the ISO standard
> > > > or define a new language with automatic variable
> > > >
> > > > separation and then we can talk again.
> > > >
> > > > P.S.: Lambda Prolog can do it. But you would write
> > > > findall invocation slightly differently.
> > > > Markus Triska schrieb am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2022 um 19:21:23 UTC+2:
> > > > > Mostowski Collapse <burs...@gmail.com> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Which had these people behind it, potential users of it:
> > > > > However, not everyone in this list supports everything in the document.
> > > > > And the document is from 14 years ago: Back then, important constructs
> > > > > such as if_/3, tfilter/3 etc. were not even found, and the quest for
> > > > > better constructs was quite stalled. We can do better today than many of
> > > > > us thought possible in 2008, or even in 2016: For example, just in these
> > > > > last 6 years, we got 4 new Prolog systems (Scryer, Trealla, Tau and
> > > > > ichiban/prolog) where double_quotes is set to chars by default. Who
> > > > > thought that this was possible in 2008? I think even in 2012 or even
> > > > > later, implementors advocated for JavaScript-style "strings" in Prolog
> > > > > and even added them to their systems, until a new representation
> > > > > pioneered by Scryer Prolog made chars viable in newer systems. forall/2
> > > > > probably likewise seemed necessary in 2008, but does it still seem so
> > > > > today? A better, not yet found construct, could likewise make it
> > > > > obsolete, just like JavaScript-style strings have now become obsolete.
> > > > > > Make a GitHub search, you find many places where it is used
> > > > > > by some Prolog programmer. Its kind of staple food.
> > > > > You will find a lot on GitHub, a lot of Java and C code too. It could
> > > > > make for an interesting analysis, however I find decisions based on such
> > > > > statistics subject to certain doubts: For example, is a construct that
> > > > > violates elementary logical properties good because it appears in a lot
> > > > > of programs? Or does this rather show that many programs could be
> > > > > improved by removing this construct entirely from the language?
> > > > >
> > > > > All the best,
> > > > > Markus
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > comp.lang.prolog FAQ: http://www.logic.at/prolog/faq/
> > > > > The Power of Prolog: https://www.metalevel.at/prolog

Peanos conditional made it
even into the Principia Mathematica:

Before we look at a wider range of examples, a detailed
example involving quantified variables will prove to be
instructive. Whitehead and Russell follow Peano’s

practice of expressing universally quantified conditionals
(such as “All ps are qs”) with the bound variable
subscripted under the conditional sign.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pm-notation/#Exam

Lets make Peano great again!

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 13. Juli 2022 um 01:22:27 UTC+2:
> Also there are quite capable people in the SWI Prolog
> discourse group, that where discussing forall/2
> versus foreach/2, repeatedly showing some
>
> deep understanding of the constructs, which I find
> lacking if somebody critizises the construct based
> on a usage error in the form
>
> of lack of purification. That paints one into a corner
> of not understanding the construct at all. Last but
> not least s(CASP) starting with s(ASP),
>
> have also found uses for some forms of forall/2.
> Just read the papers follow the forums and
> inspect the systems. forall/2 has
>
> come to amazing new life. forall is also
> not the worst name of the predicate, since it can
> provide the so called bounded universal quantifier,
>
> under certain circumstances you can tranlate it
> (this is left as an exercise):
>
> ALL(x):[A => B]
>
> But I have recently started calling it Peano
> implication, since Giuseppe Peano used the
> following notation for it:
>
> A =>x B
>
> putting more emphasis on the underlying
> implication than on the universally
> bound variable.
>
> Have Fun!
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 13. Juli 2022 um 01:02:47 UTC+2:
> > Also the uses of forall/2 have increased in the past.
> > Some people use it as a replacement for failure driven loop:
> >
> > ?- G, C, fail; true.
> >
> > They write it as:
> >
> > ?- forall(G, C).
> >
> > It has the advantage/disadvantage that it signals
> > failure of C. Which the failure driven loop does not do.
> > You find it in the wild here:
> >
> > main :-
> > forall(number_fizzbuzz_below_100(_, FizzBuzz),
> > (write(FizzBuzz), write('\n'))).
> >
> > https://github.com/triska/clpz/issues/12
> >
> > Its from some of your users of Scryer Prolog
> > and some of your users of CLP(Z). So I guess
> > you dont know who your users are?
> >
> > Good luck with that…
> > You are Genius like Putin.
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 13. Juli 2022 um 00:17:00 UTC+2:
> > > Corr.: Currently in Prolog we would have:
> > >
> > > ?- X = 3, findall(X, member(X, [1,4,2]), L).
> > > X = 3,
> > > L = []
> > >
> > > In as far forall/2 has a similar „problem“
> > > which is usually taken care by the programmer,
> > > similarly like the programmer watches
> > >
> > > that his findalls are purified according to the
> > > use case he has. Etc.. etc… But compared
> > > to Lambda Prolog ordinary prolog is
> > >
> > > more primitive and has primafacie some inference
> > > rules missing, although a lot can be compensated by
> > > meta interpreters, little theorem provers, little
> > >
> > > new languages written in Prolog itself. But these little
> > > tools might be impure. Some lamda Prolog through its
> > > HOAS can enforce meta circular purity. Here I
> > >
> > > totally agree that Prolog lacks this feature. But you cannot
> > > add this feature by forbidding things as you do. Compared
> > > to Lamda Prolog your approach of turding Prolog
> > >
> > > by disrupting GitHub with crazy comments and
> > > no contribution has zero impact on improving the
> > > situation. Its just nonsense.
> > > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 13. Juli 2022 um 00:01:29 UTC+2:
> > > > In Lambda Prolog you could define a findall
> > > > by accempting a higher order closure using
> > > > some lambda binder, here I am using (\)/2 for
> > > >
> > > > this purpose. findall would only have arity 2:
> > > >
> > > > ?- findall(X\member(X, [1,4,2]), L).
> > > > L = [1, 4, 2]
> > > > ?- X = 3, findall(X\member(X, [1,4,2]), L).
> > > > X = 3,
> > > > L = [1, 4, 2]
> > > > But you have to rethink your logic programming
> > > > language from ground up. You might need a different
> > > > read term, or some post processing of read term.
> > > >
> > > > Lambda Prolog does all that. But posting turds on GitHub
> > > > does nothing. It only shows that you are ignorant about
> > > > possible solutions that exist since Alonzo Church,
> > > >
> > > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alonzo_Church
> > > >
> > > > The solutions are older than the 50 years of prolog.
> > > > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2022 um 23:50:20 UTC+2:
> > > > > Well the error is always the programmer, in this
> > > > > case the programmer doesnt know that in Prolog
> > > > > bound variables have to be „ purified“ i.e. given
> > > > >
> > > > > different names. For example spinning your nonsense
> > > > > further far ahead, you could also demand to ban
> > > > > findall from Prolog, because:
> > > > >
> > > > > ?- findall(X, member(X, [1,4,2], L).
> > > > > L = [1, 4, 2]
> > > > >
> > > > > X is not instantiated in the answer, so by monotonicity,
> > > > > we should be able to instantiate it, but it goes wrong:
> > > > >
> > > > > ?- X = 3, findall(X, member(X, [1,4,2], L).
> > > > > fail
> > > > >
> > > > > Separating away variable names is bread and butter in
> > > > > theorem proving. I dont think double_quotes chars value
> > > > > is a contribution here, neither if_ etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > I dont find any proposal for an improvement either in
> > > > > the new Prolog systems like Trealla, Scryer, etc..
> > > > >
> > > > > I only find turds on GitHub all over the place forbid
> > > > > this forbid that despite there is not a single outcry
> > > > > by other Prolog programmers that variable
> > > > >
> > > > > purification is not a body convesion step in ISO standard
> > > > > Prolog. Write please an amendmend to the ISO standard
> > > > > or define a new language with automatic variable
> > > > >
> > > > > separation and then we can talk again.
> > > > >
> > > > > P.S.: Lambda Prolog can do it. But you would write
> > > > > findall invocation slightly differently.
> > > > > Markus Triska schrieb am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2022 um 19:21:23 UTC+2:
> > > > > > Mostowski Collapse <burs...@gmail.com> writes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Which had these people behind it, potential users of it:
> > > > > > However, not everyone in this list supports everything in the document.
> > > > > > And the document is from 14 years ago: Back then, important constructs
> > > > > > such as if_/3, tfilter/3 etc. were not even found, and the quest for
> > > > > > better constructs was quite stalled. We can do better today than many of
> > > > > > us thought possible in 2008, or even in 2016: For example, just in these
> > > > > > last 6 years, we got 4 new Prolog systems (Scryer, Trealla, Tau and
> > > > > > ichiban/prolog) where double_quotes is set to chars by default. Who
> > > > > > thought that this was possible in 2008? I think even in 2012 or even
> > > > > > later, implementors advocated for JavaScript-style "strings" in Prolog
> > > > > > and even added them to their systems, until a new representation
> > > > > > pioneered by Scryer Prolog made chars viable in newer systems. forall/2
> > > > > > probably likewise seemed necessary in 2008, but does it still seem so
> > > > > > today? A better, not yet found construct, could likewise make it
> > > > > > obsolete, just like JavaScript-style strings have now become obsolete.
> > > > > > > Make a GitHub search, you find many places where it is used
> > > > > > > by some Prolog programmer. Its kind of staple food.
> > > > > > You will find a lot on GitHub, a lot of Java and C code too. It could
> > > > > > make for an interesting analysis, however I find decisions based on such
> > > > > > statistics subject to certain doubts: For example, is a construct that
> > > > > > violates elementary logical properties good because it appears in a lot
> > > > > > of programs? Or does this rather show that many programs could be
> > > > > > improved by removing this construct entirely from the language?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All the best,
> > > > > > Markus
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > comp.lang.prolog FAQ: http://www.logic.at/prolog/faq/
> > > > > > The Power of Prolog: https://www.metalevel.at/prolog

Small addendum. In certain situations (\+ A) acts
as ¬A, but in other situations it can also act as
¬∃x1..,∃xnA for some variables x1,..,xn.

Same for forall/2, in certain situations forall(A,B)
acts as A → B, but it can also act as ∀x1..,∀xn(A →
∃y1..∃ymB). So its more complicated than only

forall quantifier, its forall quantifier implication
existential quantifier. But when is it Peano implication?
Well, for example if the second formula, i.e. B is

ground negation, if during execution, from the
bindings after A the currently invoked B is already
ground. The the result of forall/2 is not this:

∀x1..,∀xn(A → ∃y1..∃ymB)

But only this:

∀x1..,∀xn(A → B)

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 13. Juli 2022 um 01:32:58 UTC+2:
> Peanos conditional made it
> even into the Principia Mathematica:
>
> Before we look at a wider range of examples, a detailed
> example involving quantified variables will prove to be
> instructive. Whitehead and Russell follow Peano’s
>
> practice of expressing universally quantified conditionals
> (such as “All ps are qs”) with the bound variable
> subscripted under the conditional sign.
>
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pm-notation/#Exam
>
> Lets make Peano great again!

Ciao Prologs “State of the Art” is rather the
night mare of “The Art of loosing State”.

?- assertz(foo).
yes

?- foo.
yes

?- repeat, fail.
{ Execution aborted }

?- foo.
{ERROR: No handle found for thrown exception error(existence_error(procedure,'user:foo'/0),'user:foo'/0)}
aborted

https://ciao-lang.org/playground/

I hope SWI-Prolog will not blindly immitate
every nonsense from Ciao Prolog.

Workers do still synchronously process message
they receive. As a result Ciao cannot send an “abort”
control to a worker, since Ciao Prolog itself inside

the worker is not asyncified. As a result I see one
Worker going down and another Worker comming
up, when I press Abort button in Ciao, and the

dynamic database state is gone. Bye Bye.

BTW: As soon as you have asyncified your Prolog
interpreter, you don't need the single worker anymore.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 02:58:17 UTC+2:
> Ciao Prologs “State of the Art” is rather the
> night mare of “The Art of loosing State”.
>
> ?- assertz(foo).
> yes
>
> ?- foo.
> yes
>
> ?- repeat, fail.
> { Execution aborted }
>
> ?- foo.
> {ERROR: No handle found for thrown exception error(existence_error(procedure,'user:foo'/0),'user:foo'/0)}
> aborted
>
> https://ciao-lang.org/playground/
>
> I hope SWI-Prolog will not blindly immitate
> every nonsense from Ciao Prolog.

Question was, what means syncify?

It means that you turn your Prolog interpreter into an Engine
that can yield, but that you also have some auto-yielding.
So that the the browser or node.exe can process operating

system tasks while the Prolog system is running. Basically the
JavaScript async/await is an extended iterator code rewriting
of a form of yield, which yields promises. If you take this path

you would also need to extended the engine concept so that
you can voluntarily yield promises, like for example for a fetch.
In such a scenario the Prolog system might appear to block,

this is the other illusion the asyncification can create. Basically
you can create the following illusions by asyncification
without the need of a pre-emptive scheduler:

- Non-blocking parallelism between Prolog system and operating system
- Blocking wait for completion of some operating system tasks

Optionally you can also use it for multiple Prolog threads, but
I don’t see a point in doing this. So I branded this “misuse”.
But you could do this as well and it has certainly some use

cases if the multiple Prolog threads do a lot of operating
system tasks. But it is missing in the above list for the moment,
so conceptionally there are only “two” co-routines the single

threaded Prolog system and the operating system tasks event
loop provided by the browser or node.exe. In the same way its
possible to make a Python variant of such an engine.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 03:01:16 UTC+2:
> Workers do still synchronously process message
> they receive. As a result Ciao cannot send an “abort”
> control to a worker, since Ciao Prolog itself inside
>
> the worker is not asyncified. As a result I see one
> Worker going down and another Worker comming
> up, when I press Abort button in Ciao, and the
>
> dynamic database state is gone. Bye Bye.
>
> BTW: As soon as you have asyncified your Prolog
> interpreter, you don't need the single worker anymore.
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 02:58:17 UTC+2:
> > Ciao Prologs “State of the Art” is rather the
> > night mare of “The Art of loosing State”.
> >
> > ?- assertz(foo).
> > yes
> >
> > ?- foo.
> > yes
> >
> > ?- repeat, fail.
> > { Execution aborted }
> >
> > ?- foo.
> > {ERROR: No handle found for thrown exception error(existence_error(procedure,'user:foo'/0),'user:foo'/0)}
> > aborted
> >
> > https://ciao-lang.org/playground/
> >
> > I hope SWI-Prolog will not blindly immitate
> > every nonsense from Ciao Prolog.

It was two questions already, or a different question altogether,
namely asking for WASM as well.

Disclaimer: Oh my, I invented the word “asyncify” spontanously
yesterday. But it has also some meaning in relation to WASM.
My previous portraying is from experience with CheerpJ, Tau-

Prolog and Dogelog, and only CheerpJ has WASM (the recent
version using 64-bit). Maybe for more WASM specific questions
you need to consult other source, I find for example:

https://web.dev/asyncify/

Possibly when the above community is talking about asyncification
it has a total different meaning then what I described. Attention! Attention!

Also CheerpJ comes without auto-yielding. You can add it
yourself, by calling Java Thread.yield(), it was an undocumented
feature of CheerpJ. But in CheerpJ I could not yield promises so

easily, maybe there is an exotic Java API, and then there
is a danger that CheerpJ doesn’t support it, since it is rather
tailord towards bringing some convetional Swing/Standalone

applications to the web, so this is a specific new feature of the
Dogelog engine, breaking out of a particular Java world.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 10:16:49 UTC+2:
> Question was, what means syncify?
>
> It means that you turn your Prolog interpreter into an Engine
> that can yield, but that you also have some auto-yielding.
> So that the the browser or node.exe can process operating
>
> system tasks while the Prolog system is running. Basically the
> JavaScript async/await is an extended iterator code rewriting
> of a form of yield, which yields promises. If you take this path
>
> you would also need to extended the engine concept so that
> you can voluntarily yield promises, like for example for a fetch.
> In such a scenario the Prolog system might appear to block,
>
> this is the other illusion the asyncification can create. Basically
> you can create the following illusions by asyncification
> without the need of a pre-emptive scheduler:
>
> - Non-blocking parallelism between Prolog system and operating system
> - Blocking wait for completion of some operating system tasks
>
> Optionally you can also use it for multiple Prolog threads, but
> I don’t see a point in doing this. So I branded this “misuse”.
> But you could do this as well and it has certainly some use
>
> cases if the multiple Prolog threads do a lot of operating
> system tasks. But it is missing in the above list for the moment,
> so conceptionally there are only “two” co-routines the single
>
> threaded Prolog system and the operating system tasks event
> loop provided by the browser or node.exe. In the same way its
> possible to make a Python variant of such an engine.
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 03:01:16 UTC+2:
> > Workers do still synchronously process message
> > they receive. As a result Ciao cannot send an “abort”
> > control to a worker, since Ciao Prolog itself inside
> >
> > the worker is not asyncified. As a result I see one
> > Worker going down and another Worker comming
> > up, when I press Abort button in Ciao, and the
> >
> > dynamic database state is gone. Bye Bye.
> >
> > BTW: As soon as you have asyncified your Prolog
> > interpreter, you don't need the single worker anymore.
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 02:58:17 UTC+2:
> > > Ciao Prologs “State of the Art” is rather the
> > > night mare of “The Art of loosing State”.
> > >
> > > ?- assertz(foo).
> > > yes
> > >
> > > ?- foo.
> > > yes
> > >
> > > ?- repeat, fail.
> > > { Execution aborted }
> > >
> > > ?- foo.
> > > {ERROR: No handle found for thrown exception error(existence_error(procedure,'user:foo'/0),'user:foo'/0)}
> > > aborted
> > >
> > > https://ciao-lang.org/playground/
> > >
> > > I hope SWI-Prolog will not blindly immitate
> > > every nonsense from Ciao Prolog.

Thanks to my testing sixth sense, the first Ciao Playground issue:
https://github.com/ciao-lang/ciao_playground/issues/1

I hope its not ending like Scryer Prolog, which has a wooping
223 open tickets, tendency is not yet that the number of open
tickets goes down.

My favorite formula for such an explosion of tickets is:

The Ticket Backlog Curve
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=1+-+exp%28-x%29+-+x%2F3+from+0+to+3

So an initial explosion of tickets is linearly reduced.
Where in this curve is Scryer Prolog right now?

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 10:19:46 UTC+2:
> It was two questions already, or a different question altogether,
> namely asking for WASM as well.
>
> Disclaimer: Oh my, I invented the word “asyncify” spontanously
> yesterday. But it has also some meaning in relation to WASM.
> My previous portraying is from experience with CheerpJ, Tau-
>
> Prolog and Dogelog, and only CheerpJ has WASM (the recent
> version using 64-bit). Maybe for more WASM specific questions
> you need to consult other source, I find for example:
>
> https://web.dev/asyncify/
>
> Possibly when the above community is talking about asyncification
> it has a total different meaning then what I described. Attention! Attention!
>
> Also CheerpJ comes without auto-yielding. You can add it
> yourself, by calling Java Thread.yield(), it was an undocumented
> feature of CheerpJ. But in CheerpJ I could not yield promises so
>
> easily, maybe there is an exotic Java API, and then there
> is a danger that CheerpJ doesn’t support it, since it is rather
> tailord towards bringing some convetional Swing/Standalone
>
> applications to the web, so this is a specific new feature of the
> Dogelog engine, breaking out of a particular Java world.
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 10:16:49 UTC+2:
> > Question was, what means syncify?
> >
> > It means that you turn your Prolog interpreter into an Engine
> > that can yield, but that you also have some auto-yielding.
> > So that the the browser or node.exe can process operating
> >
> > system tasks while the Prolog system is running. Basically the
> > JavaScript async/await is an extended iterator code rewriting
> > of a form of yield, which yields promises. If you take this path
> >
> > you would also need to extended the engine concept so that
> > you can voluntarily yield promises, like for example for a fetch.
> > In such a scenario the Prolog system might appear to block,
> >
> > this is the other illusion the asyncification can create. Basically
> > you can create the following illusions by asyncification
> > without the need of a pre-emptive scheduler:
> >
> > - Non-blocking parallelism between Prolog system and operating system
> > - Blocking wait for completion of some operating system tasks
> >
> > Optionally you can also use it for multiple Prolog threads, but
> > I don’t see a point in doing this. So I branded this “misuse”.
> > But you could do this as well and it has certainly some use
> >
> > cases if the multiple Prolog threads do a lot of operating
> > system tasks. But it is missing in the above list for the moment,
> > so conceptionally there are only “two” co-routines the single
> >
> > threaded Prolog system and the operating system tasks event
> > loop provided by the browser or node.exe. In the same way its
> > possible to make a Python variant of such an engine.
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 03:01:16 UTC+2:
> > > Workers do still synchronously process message
> > > they receive. As a result Ciao cannot send an “abort”
> > > control to a worker, since Ciao Prolog itself inside
> > >
> > > the worker is not asyncified. As a result I see one
> > > Worker going down and another Worker comming
> > > up, when I press Abort button in Ciao, and the
> > >
> > > dynamic database state is gone. Bye Bye.
> > >
> > > BTW: As soon as you have asyncified your Prolog
> > > interpreter, you don't need the single worker anymore.
> > > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 02:58:17 UTC+2:
> > > > Ciao Prologs “State of the Art” is rather the
> > > > night mare of “The Art of loosing State”.
> > > >
> > > > ?- assertz(foo).
> > > > yes
> > > >
> > > > ?- foo.
> > > > yes
> > > >
> > > > ?- repeat, fail.
> > > > { Execution aborted }
> > > >
> > > > ?- foo.
> > > > {ERROR: No handle found for thrown exception error(existence_error(procedure,'user:foo'/0),'user:foo'/0)}
> > > > aborted
> > > >
> > > > https://ciao-lang.org/playground/
> > > >
> > > > I hope SWI-Prolog will not blindly immitate
> > > > every nonsense from Ciao Prolog.

Many WASM projects now coming out of the closet. My expectation,
this is only a win win situation in the long run, but it might be
painful at the beginning.

For a stealth project, which wasn’t on GitHub from the beginning,
and which has some non-public tickets somewhere, its more
difficult to estimate the current standing from the outside.

For Scryer Prolog the struggle is minutely documented:

Compiling and running scryer as a WebAssembly binary?
https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/issues/615

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 13:07:29 UTC+2:
> Thanks to my testing sixth sense, the first Ciao Playground issue:
> https://github.com/ciao-lang/ciao_playground/issues/1
>
> I hope its not ending like Scryer Prolog, which has a wooping
> 223 open tickets, tendency is not yet that the number of open
> tickets goes down.
>
> My favorite formula for such an explosion of tickets is:
>
> The Ticket Backlog Curve
> https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=1+-+exp%28-x%29+-+x%2F3+from+0+to+3
>
> So an initial explosion of tickets is linearly reduced.
> Where in this curve is Scryer Prolog right now?

How it started:

Somebody wrote yesterday:
"For anyone finding this project interesting, we kindly as
everyone to try and explore our system, file issue reports,
contribute, and of course star our repository :wink: .

BTW, this reminds me that it is really a pity that we do
not have a common Prolog forum to discuss, like in the old days.
Newsgroups do not work, and a “single system”

discourse group is not a solution."

How its going:

A few hours ago, when starting to make visible some
limitations, everything diverted in a blink from “hello
community” to “bilateralism”.

Somebody wrote today:
"I’m happy to have a discussion on exchanging code and
ideas between our projects. I think a telco is a better medium
for that than here. Just drop me a personal message."

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 13:25:37 UTC+2:
> Many WASM projects now coming out of the closet. My expectation,
> this is only a win win situation in the long run, but it might be
> painful at the beginning.
>
> For a stealth project, which wasn’t on GitHub from the beginning,
> and which has some non-public tickets somewhere, its more
> difficult to estimate the current standing from the outside.
>
> For Scryer Prolog the struggle is minutely documented:
>
> Compiling and running scryer as a WebAssembly binary?
> https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/issues/615
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 13:07:29 UTC+2:
> > Thanks to my testing sixth sense, the first Ciao Playground issue:
> > https://github.com/ciao-lang/ciao_playground/issues/1
> >
> > I hope its not ending like Scryer Prolog, which has a wooping
> > 223 open tickets, tendency is not yet that the number of open
> > tickets goes down.
> >
> > My favorite formula for such an explosion of tickets is:
> >
> > The Ticket Backlog Curve
> > https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=1+-+exp%28-x%29+-+x%2F3+from+0+to+3
> >
> > So an initial explosion of tickets is linearly reduced.
> > Where in this curve is Scryer Prolog right now?

Anyway, I have an admin questions, so playground tickets
don’t go into the Ciao Playground repo but into the Ciao repo?
Historically Bilateralism does not have a good Reputation

"The first rejection of bilateralism came after the First World War
when many politicians concluded that the complex pre-war
system of bilateral treaties had made war inevitable."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilateralism#History

So we might see some Prolog Web API wars in the near future?
Because of some coalition formation between SWI-Prolog and
Ciao Prolog? And then them against the rest of the Prolog world?

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 16:56:06 UTC+2:
> How it started:
>
> Somebody wrote yesterday:
> "For anyone finding this project interesting, we kindly as
> everyone to try and explore our system, file issue reports,
> contribute, and of course star our repository :wink: .
>
> BTW, this reminds me that it is really a pity that we do
> not have a common Prolog forum to discuss, like in the old days.
> Newsgroups do not work, and a “single system”
>
> discourse group is not a solution."
>
> How its going:
>
> A few hours ago, when starting to make visible some
> limitations, everything diverted in a blink from “hello
> community” to “bilateralism”.
>
> Somebody wrote today:
> "I’m happy to have a discussion on exchanging code and
> ideas between our projects. I think a telco is a better medium
> for that than here. Just drop me a personal message."
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 13:25:37 UTC+2:
> > Many WASM projects now coming out of the closet. My expectation,
> > this is only a win win situation in the long run, but it might be
> > painful at the beginning.
> >
> > For a stealth project, which wasn’t on GitHub from the beginning,
> > and which has some non-public tickets somewhere, its more
> > difficult to estimate the current standing from the outside.
> >
> > For Scryer Prolog the struggle is minutely documented:
> >
> > Compiling and running scryer as a WebAssembly binary?
> > https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/issues/615
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 13:07:29 UTC+2:
> > > Thanks to my testing sixth sense, the first Ciao Playground issue:
> > > https://github.com/ciao-lang/ciao_playground/issues/1
> > >
> > > I hope its not ending like Scryer Prolog, which has a wooping
> > > 223 open tickets, tendency is not yet that the number of open
> > > tickets goes down.
> > >
> > > My favorite formula for such an explosion of tickets is:
> > >
> > > The Ticket Backlog Curve
> > > https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=1+-+exp%28-x%29+-+x%2F3+from+0+to+3
> > >
> > > So an initial explosion of tickets is linearly reduced.
> > > Where in this curve is Scryer Prolog right now?

So for how long should we buy popcorn? How long will
this Prolog Web API wars last, months to years?

LoL

Thats actually the most astonishing und upredictable
thing here, the time scale. Can the unknown be planned?
Is a late adopter in a more advantageous position. What

if his system, like for example SWI-Prolog, is rather larger
Prolog system, organically grown for certain target systems,
and also moved away over the past from the

small ISO core standard.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 16:56:57 UTC+2:
> Anyway, I have an admin questions, so playground tickets
> don’t go into the Ciao Playground repo but into the Ciao repo?
> Historically Bilateralism does not have a good Reputation
>
> "The first rejection of bilateralism came after the First World War
> when many politicians concluded that the complex pre-war
> system of bilateral treaties had made war inevitable."
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilateralism#History
>
> So we might see some Prolog Web API wars in the near future?
> Because of some coalition formation between SWI-Prolog and
> Ciao Prolog? And then them against the rest of the Prolog world?
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 16:56:06 UTC+2:
> > How it started:
> >
> > Somebody wrote yesterday:
> > "For anyone finding this project interesting, we kindly as
> > everyone to try and explore our system, file issue reports,
> > contribute, and of course star our repository :wink: .
> >
> > BTW, this reminds me that it is really a pity that we do
> > not have a common Prolog forum to discuss, like in the old days.
> > Newsgroups do not work, and a “single system”
> >
> > discourse group is not a solution."
> >
> > How its going:
> >
> > A few hours ago, when starting to make visible some
> > limitations, everything diverted in a blink from “hello
> > community” to “bilateralism”.
> >
> > Somebody wrote today:
> > "I’m happy to have a discussion on exchanging code and
> > ideas between our projects. I think a telco is a better medium
> > for that than here. Just drop me a personal message."
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 13:25:37 UTC+2:
> > > Many WASM projects now coming out of the closet. My expectation,
> > > this is only a win win situation in the long run, but it might be
> > > painful at the beginning.
> > >
> > > For a stealth project, which wasn’t on GitHub from the beginning,
> > > and which has some non-public tickets somewhere, its more
> > > difficult to estimate the current standing from the outside.
> > >
> > > For Scryer Prolog the struggle is minutely documented:
> > >
> > > Compiling and running scryer as a WebAssembly binary?
> > > https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/issues/615
> > > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 5. August 2022 um 13:07:29 UTC+2:
> > > > Thanks to my testing sixth sense, the first Ciao Playground issue:
> > > > https://github.com/ciao-lang/ciao_playground/issues/1
> > > >
> > > > I hope its not ending like Scryer Prolog, which has a wooping
> > > > 223 open tickets, tendency is not yet that the number of open
> > > > tickets goes down.
> > > >
> > > > My favorite formula for such an explosion of tickets is:
> > > >
> > > > The Ticket Backlog Curve
> > > > https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=1+-+exp%28-x%29+-+x%2F3+from+0+to+3
> > > >
> > > > So an initial explosion of tickets is linearly reduced.
> > > > Where in this curve is Scryer Prolog right now?

I have bad news for Ciao Prolog concerning:

Just in case it is useful, we published this paper back in
2012 about translation of Prolog to JS. We had some
libraries to interact with the DOM and JS and some
kind of JS foreign interface:
[1210.2864] Lightweight compilation of (C)LP to JavaScript
https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.2864

Its not extremly relevant, since the presented Ciao JS is not asyncified.
For example if I go to this page, I do not find that it is asyncified:

8-Queens Demo
http://cliplab.org/~jfran/ptojs/queens_ui/queens_ui.html

It doesn’t count as a prior art of an asyncified Prolog system.
asyncified Prolog systems basically started with Tau-Prolog
to some extend, they use a kind of continuation style asyncification.

The milestone was when they started demonstrating some
async task stuff a few years ago.

But meanwhile Tau Prolog has evolved and now also
provide a modern async/await interface, similar like
Dogelog player has since a few months. So you

can now use Tau Prolog without ugly Promise chains
and with elegant async/await. At least I find
something like this now documented here:

Promises interface
http://tau-prolog.org/manual/promises-interface

But they do not 100% follow the naming convention for async
functions. I also do not 100% follow the naming convention.
In Dogelog I use async_XXX and Tau Prolog uses promiseXXX,

but according to this web article the naming convention would be XXXAsync:

JavaScript Method Naming Convention for Async Functions
https://blog.8bitzen.com/posts/13-06-2019-javascript-method-naming-convention-for-async-functions

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 6. August 2022 um 21:45:44 UTC+2:
> I have bad news for Ciao Prolog concerning:
>
> Just in case it is useful, we published this paper back in
> 2012 about translation of Prolog to JS. We had some
> libraries to interact with the DOM and JS and some
> kind of JS foreign interface:
> [1210.2864] Lightweight compilation of (C)LP to JavaScript
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.2864
>
> Its not extremly relevant, since the presented Ciao JS is not asyncified.
> For example if I go to this page, I do not find that it is asyncified:
>
> 8-Queens Demo
> http://cliplab.org/~jfran/ptojs/queens_ui/queens_ui.html
>
> It doesn’t count as a prior art of an asyncified Prolog system.
> asyncified Prolog systems basically started with Tau-Prolog
> to some extend, they use a kind of continuation style asyncification.
>
> The milestone was when they started demonstrating some
> async task stuff a few years ago.

Maybe one can build an asyncified SWI-Prolog WASM
around eyebrow. The code currently contains
Promise chains:

fetch('https://josd.github.io/eye/eye.pl')
.then(response => response.text())
.then(data => (Module.FS.writeFile('/eye.pl', data)));
https://github.com/josd/eyebrow/blob/master/socrates.html

But in principle the SWI-Prolog WASM should have a
consult, and could intiate this fetch by itself, by suspending
with the new js_yield/2 or a variant of it. So the page is

not 100% asyncified, since the SWI-Prolog WASM itself
is not yet asyncified. BTW: There would be another style
to asyncify the above fetch, instead as an old style

How to use the Fetch API with async/await
https://rapidapi.com/guides/fetch-api-async-await

Promise chain, it could be also realized with the newer style
async/await above. Brainwriting here helps me develop the
same for Dogelog, which is asyncified but has still

some synchronous parts.

If the eyebrow SWI-Prolog WASM were 100% asyncified,
by the new style async/await or by the old style
Promise chains, then we would not see:

var SWIPL = (() => {

But rather this here in the new style:

var SWIPL = (async() => {

But I am not 100% sure how to asyncify it. Currently it
creates a promise, but this is rather pointless, since
the .then((module) => is only called once, I suspect.

But an asyncified SWI-Prolog WASM would resume again
and again, realize a await promise loop. It has also some
custom rolled async support, like for example addRunDependency

and removeRunDependency, not sure what it is doing, in
connection with asyncLoad().

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Sonntag, 7. August 2022 um 14:24:49 UTC+2:
> Maybe one can build an asyncified SWI-Prolog WASM
> around eyebrow. The code currently contains
> Promise chains:
>
> fetch('https://josd.github.io/eye/eye.pl')
> .then(response => response.text())
> .then(data => (Module.FS.writeFile('/eye.pl', data)));
> https://github.com/josd/eyebrow/blob/master/socrates.html
>
> But in principle the SWI-Prolog WASM should have a
> consult, and could intiate this fetch by itself, by suspending
> with the new js_yield/2 or a variant of it. So the page is
>
> not 100% asyncified, since the SWI-Prolog WASM itself
> is not yet asyncified. BTW: There would be another style
> to asyncify the above fetch, instead as an old style
>
> How to use the Fetch API with async/await
> https://rapidapi.com/guides/fetch-api-async-await
>
> Promise chain, it could be also realized with the newer style
> async/await above. Brainwriting here helps me develop the
> same for Dogelog, which is asyncified but has still
>
> some synchronous parts.

Corr.:
var is also deprecated nowadays

let SWIPL = (async() => {

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Sonntag, 7. August 2022 um 14:26:25 UTC+2:
> If the eyebrow SWI-Prolog WASM were 100% asyncified,
> by the new style async/await or by the old style
> Promise chains, then we would not see:
>
> var SWIPL = (() => {
>
> But rather this here in the new style:
>
> var SWIPL = (async() => {
>
> But I am not 100% sure how to asyncify it. Currently it
> creates a promise, but this is rather pointless, since
> the .then((module) => is only called once, I suspect.
>
> But an asyncified SWI-Prolog WASM would resume again
> and again, realize a await promise loop. It has also some
> custom rolled async support, like for example addRunDependency
>
> and removeRunDependency, not sure what it is doing, in
> connection with asyncLoad().
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Sonntag, 7. August 2022 um 14:24:49 UTC+2:
> > Maybe one can build an asyncified SWI-Prolog WASM
> > around eyebrow. The code currently contains
> > Promise chains:
> >
> > fetch('https://josd.github.io/eye/eye.pl')
> > .then(response => response.text())
> > .then(data => (Module.FS.writeFile('/eye.pl', data)));
> > https://github.com/josd/eyebrow/blob/master/socrates.html
> >
> > But in principle the SWI-Prolog WASM should have a
> > consult, and could intiate this fetch by itself, by suspending
> > with the new js_yield/2 or a variant of it. So the page is
> >
> > not 100% asyncified, since the SWI-Prolog WASM itself
> > is not yet asyncified. BTW: There would be another style
> > to asyncify the above fetch, instead as an old style
> >
> > How to use the Fetch API with async/await
> > https://rapidapi.com/guides/fetch-api-async-await
> >
> > Promise chain, it could be also realized with the newer style
> > async/await above. Brainwriting here helps me develop the
> > same for Dogelog, which is asyncified but has still
> >
> > some synchronous parts.

I am just writing down what comes to my mind.
For example when I read this here:

Reverse the burden of proof
http://josd.github.io/Talks/2022/06welding/#(7)

Then I think this is a too narrow view what
Jan Wielemaker work could do. Although I have
no clue how much work it is for SWI-Prolog and
where SWI-Prolog is going. But basically:

- Yielding plus asyncify can be also used on
the server and headless mode, via nodejs, its
not restricted to the client and the browser. (Works in Dogelog so far)
https://nodejs.org/en/

- Yielding plus asyncify can be also done for
Python, and some other languages, Python
even has the new async/await as well. (Works in Dogelog so far)

- Its an age old technique, practically every operating
system has coroutine rings inside threads

- In the Java world its usually called fibers

- It is what allowed Erlang to have millions of actors

In the broader view you can use it for peer to peer
communication between servers as well, like some
blockchain confirmation counts etc…

And the peer can be even a browser client, but you
need to change the same-origin credentials I guess.

Disclaimer: Somebody from the industry could
surely talk more competently about it. Like somebody
from https://tokio.rs/ ?

Some results of a 48 hour SWIPL WASM Hackathon?
https://dev.swi-prolog.org/wasm/shell

?- assertz(foo).
true.

?- foo.
true.

?- repeat, fail.
ERROR: Execution Aborted
?- foo.
true.

ultimately superior to some polished academic papers,
that need 3 years from inception to publication

LoL

(Possibly also a nice display of continuous integration (CI) and
continuous deployment (CD). For example the WASM thingy.)

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 9. August 2022 um 00:07:47 UTC+2:
> Some results of a 48 hour SWIPL WASM Hackathon?
> https://dev.swi-prolog.org/wasm/shell
>
> ?- assertz(foo).
> true.
>
> ?- foo.
> true.
>
> ?- repeat, fail.
> ERROR: Execution Aborted
> ?- foo.
> true.
>
> ultimately superior to some polished academic papers,
> that need 3 years from inception to publication
>
> LoL