Does prolog have a spread/splat/*args operator? - prolog

Question

In many procedural languages (such as python), I can "unpack" a list and use it as arguments for a function. For example...
def print_sum(a, b, c):
sum = a + b + c
print("The sum is %d" % sum)
print_sum(*[5, 2, 1])
This code will print: "The sum is 8"
Here is the documentation for this language feature.
Does prolog have a similar feature?
Is there a way to replicate this argument-unpacking behaviour in Prolog?
For example, I'd like to unpack a list variable before passing it into call.
Could I write a predicate like this?
assert_true(Predicate, with_args([Input])) :-
call(Predicate, Input).
% Where `Input` is somehow unpacked before being passed into `call`.
...That I could then query with
?- assert_true(reverse, with_args([ [1, 2, 3], [3, 2, 1] ])).
% Should be true, currently fails.
?- assert_true(succ, with_args([ 2, 3 ]).
% Should be true, currently fails.
?- assert_true(succ, with_args([ 2, 4 ]).
% Should be false, currently fails.
Notes
You may think that this is an XY Problem. It could be, but don't get discouraged. It'd be ideal to receive an answer for just my question title.
You may tell me that I'm approaching the problem poorly. I know your intentions are good, but this kind of advice won't help to answer the question. Please refer to the above point.
Perhaps I'm approaching Prolog in too much of a procedural mindset. If this is the case, then what mindset would help me to solve the problem?
I'm using SWI-Prolog.

Answer 1

The built-in (=..)/2 (univ) serves this purpose. E.g.
?- G =.. [g, 1, 2, 3].
G = g(1,2,3).
?- g(1,2,3) =.. Xs.
Xs = [g,1,2,3].
However, note that many uses of (=..)/2 where the number of arguments is fixed can be replaced by call/2...call/8.

Answer 2

First: it is too easy, using unification and pattern matching, to get the elements of a list or the arguments of any term, if you know its shape. In other words:
sum_of_three(X, Y, Z, Sum) :- Sum is X+Y+Z.
?- List = [5, 2, 1],
List = [X, Y, Z], % or List = [X, Y, Z|_] if the list might be longer
sum_of_three(X, Y, Z, Sum).
For example, if you have command line arguments, and you are interested only in the first two command line arguments, it is easy to get them like this:
current_prolog_flag(argv, [First, Second|_])
Many standard predicates take lists as arguments. For example, any predicate that needs a number of options, as open/3 and open/4. Such a pair could be implemented as follows:
open(SrcDest, Mode, Stream) :-
open(SrcDest, Mode, Stream, []).
open(SrcDest, Mode, Stream, Options) :-
% get the relevant options and open the file
Here getting the relevant options can be done with a library like library(option), which can be used for example like this:
?- option(bar(X), [foo(1), bar(2), baz(3)]).
X = 2.
So this is how you can pass named arguments.
Another thing that was not mentioned in the answer by #false: in Prolog, you can do things like this:
Goal = reverse(X, Y), X = [a,b,c], Y = [c,b,a]
and at some later point:
call(Goal)
or even
Goal
To put it differently, I don't see the point in passing the arguments as a list, instead of just passing the goal as a term. At what point are the arguments a list, and why are they packed into a list?
To put it differently: given how call works, there is usually no need for unpacking a list [X, Y, Z] to a conjunction X, Y, Z that you can then use as an argument list. As in the comment to your question, these are all fine:
call(reverse, [a,b,c], [c,b,a])
and
call(reverse([a,b,c]), [c,b,a])
and
call(reverse([a,b,c], [c,b,a]))
The last one is the same as
Goal = reverse([a,b,c], [c,b,a]), Goal
This is why you can do something like this:
?- maplist(=(X), [Y, Z]).
X = Y, Y = Z.
instead of writing:
?- maplist(=, [X,X], [Y, Z]).
X = Y, Y = Z.