I have some predicates that I define using asserts in Prolog.
I am using current_predicate/1 in order to know whether the assert has been run or not (only one value needs to be asserted).
However, swipl keeps complaining:
Warning: The predicates below are not defined. If these are defined
Warning: at runtime using assert/1, use :- dynamic Name/Arity.
Warning:
Warning: amountOfStudentsInCourseAsserted/2, which is referenced by
So, I added the :- dynamic amountOfStudentsInCourseAsserted/2, but unfortunately, this adds the predicate to the current_predicate(Predicate).. Therefore I cannot use current_predicate/1 anymore if I am using this dynamic naming.
Is there another predicate like current_predicate/1that isn't true for dynamic names?
You can use in alternative the predicate_property/2 built-in predicate and the number_of_clauses/1 property.
The :- dynamic declaration is appropriate, as it will make the symbol known in the database. Then just attempt to match (with appropriate arguments, ignored in the following sample) before asserting:
...
( amountOfStudentsInCourseAsserted(_,_)
-> true
; assert(amountOfStudentsInCourseAsserted(X,Y))
),
...
Related
I've never written in Prolog before. I have to provide facts so that when it runs it displays:
?- subset([a,b],[a,c,d,b]).
true.
?-include([],[a,b]).
true.
So far, I've written this:
subset([],_Y).
subset([X|T],Y):- member(X,Y),subset(T,Y).
But include doesn't work when I write include([],[a,b]). . It shows this:
ERROR: toplevel: Undefined procedure: include/2 (DWIM could not correct goal)
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks
You get the error because you didn't define the predicate include/2. Your given example looks like include/2 should be describing the same relation as subset/2. So you can either rename your definition from subset/2 to include/2 and then run the query or you can use subset/2 to define include/2:
include(X,Y) :-
subset(X,Y).
Note that in order to use member/2 you have to use library(lists). However, in some Prolog systems (e.g. SWI) this library includes a predicate subset/2 thus leading to a warning when you consult your source file:
Warning: ...
Local definition of user:subset/2 overrides weak import from lists
If you want to implement your own version of subset/2 anyway and not get this warning, you can rename your predicate or not use library(lists) and implement your version of member/2, for example:
subset([],_Y).
subset([X|T],Y) :-
element_in(X,Y),
subset(T,Y).
element_in(X,[X|_]).
element_in(X,[Y|Ys]) :-
dif(X,Y),
element_in(X,Ys).
I want to redefine AND operator in SWI-Prolog . But I do not know how to do it.
I tried the following definition:
a & b = b & a
However, it is reported as recursive and does not work.
Wish people give me suggestions.
Thanks in advance!
You could define an operator in SWI-Prolog using op/3, such as by adding the following to your program:
:- op(1000, xfy, user:(&)).
Note that the precedence level (1000) and type (xfy) are the same as that for the conjunction operator which is already defined in SWI-Prolog (i.e., see ','/2).
Then, once declared, you can define the semantics of & as follows:
'&'(A,B) :- A, B.
Together, these two definitions will permit you to use & in-line as a replacement for , to mean conjunction in the program which incorporates them.
You can "define" and as follows:
and(t,X,X) :- bool(X).
and(f,X,f) :- bool(X).
bool(t).
bool(f).
The third argument is the result of the conjunction of the first and the second argument.
Of course, this is just an exercise, but indeed it is hard to answer your question as it is not very clear what your question is all about.
I wrote the following simple code, and I expect that when I write 'male.', this code ask me once "is it male?" and if i input 'No' it write on screen "she is female".
male :- ( print('is it male ? '),read(yes)) -> true; asserta( not(male)),female.
female:- not(male),print('she is female').
not(P) :- (call(P) -> fail ; true) .
but this code has following error:
uncaught exception: error(permission_error(modify,static_procedure,not/1),asserta/1);
the error in swi-prolog is :
ERROR: asserta/1: No permission to modify static_procedure `not/1'
As gusbro said, not/1 is a predefined static procedure (and therefore it is not a good idea to use the same name). However, this is not the reason you get the error in swi-prolog as you can overwrite the standard definition:
?- assert(not(42)).
true.
?- not(42).
true.
the problem is that you have already defined not/1 in your code and, when you do not declare a predicate explicitly as dynamic, swi-prolog will assume that it's static and will not allow you to change it.
You can declare it as dynamic by inserting this line in your code:
:-dynamic(not/1).
I think that this will not solve the problem in other prolog implementations (eg gnu-prolog) as the error message says permission_error(modify,static_procedure,not/1); in any case it is highly recommended to change the name.
By the way, it would be simpler and cleaner to simply test what the argument is and print the corresponding message. If, however, you want to create something more complex (using a state maybe) you could use global variables since they are more efficient that assert/retract.
How do I define a rule that the user cannot query?
I only want the program itself to call this rule through another rule.
Ex:
rule1():- rule2().
rule2():- 1<5.
?-rule1().
true
?-rule2().
(I don't know what the answer will be, I just want this query to fail!)
Use a Logtalk object to encapsulate your predicates. Only the predicates that you declare public can be called (from outside the object). Prolog modules don't prevent calling any predicate as using explcit qualification bypasses the list of explicitly exported predicates.
A simple example:
:- object(rules).
:- public(rule1/1).
rule1(X) :-
rule2(X).
rule2(X) :-
X < 5.
:- end_object.
After compiling and loading the object above:
?- rules::rule1(3).
true.
?- rules::rule2(3).
error(existence_error(predicate_declaration,rule2(3)),rules::rule2(3),user)
If you edit the object code and explicitly declare rule2/1 as private you would get instead the error:
?- rules::rule2(3).
error(permission_error(access,private_predicate,rule2(3)),rules::rule2(3),user)
More information and plenty of examples at http://logtalk.org/
First, some notes:
I think you mean "predicate" instead of "rule". A predicate is a name/k thing such as help/0 (and help/1 is another) and can have multiple clauses, among them facts and rules, e.g. length([], 0). (a fact) and length([H|T], L) :- ... . (a rule) are two clauses of one predicate length/2.
Do not use empty parenthesis for predicates with no arguments – in SWI-Prolog at least, this will not work at all. Just use predicate2 instead of predicate2() in all places.
If you try to call an undefined predicate, SWI-Prolog will say ERROR: toplevel: Undefined procedure: predicate2/0 (DWIM could not correct goal) and Sicstus-Prolog will say {EXISTENCE ERROR: predicate2: procedure user:predicate2/0 does not exist}
Now, to the answer. Two ideas come to my mind.
(1) This is a hack, but you could assert the predicate(s) every time you need them and retract them immediately afterwards:
predicate1 :-
assert(predicate2), predicate2, retractall(predicate2).
If you want a body and arguments for predicate2, do assert(predicate2(argument1, argument2) :- (clause1, clause2, clause3)).
(2) Another way to achieve this would be to introduce an extra argument for the predicate which you do not want to be called by the user and use it for an identification that the user cannot possibly provide, but which you can provide from your calling predicate. This might be a large constant number which looks random, or even a sentence. This even enables you to output a custom error message in case the wrong identification was provided.
Example:
predicate1 :-
predicate2("Identification: 2349860293587").
predicate2(Identification) :-
Identification = "Identification: 2349860293587",
1 < 5.
predicate2(Identification) :- Identification \= "Identification: 2349860293587",
write("Error: this procedure cannot be called by the user. Use predicate1/0 instead."),
fail.
I don't use the equivalent predicate2("Identification: 2349860293587") for the first clause of predicate2/0, because I'm not sure where the head of the clause might appear in Prolog messages and you don't want that. I use a fail in the end of the second clause just so that Prolog prints false instead of true after the error message. And finally, I have no idea how to prevent the user from looking up the source code with listing(predicate2) so that will still make it possible to simply look up the correct identification code if s/he really wants to. If it's just to keep the user from doing accidental harm, it should however suffice as a protection.
This reminds me to facility found in Java. There one can query the
curent call stack, and use this to regulate permissions of calling
a method. Translated to Prolog we find in the old DEC-10 Prolog the
following predicate:
ancestors(L)
Unifies L with a list of ancestor goals for the current clause.
The list starts with the parent goal and ends with the most recent
ancestor coming from a call in a compiled clause. The list is printed
using print and each entry is preceded by the invocation number in
parentheses followed by the depth number (as would be given in a
trace message). If the invocation does not have a number (this will
occur if Debug Mode was not switched on until further into the execution)
then this is marked by "-". Not available for compiled code.
Since the top level is usually a compiled predicate prolog/0, this could be
used to write a predicate that inspects its own call stack, and then decides
whether it wants to go into service or not.
rule2 :- ancestors(L), length(L,N), N<2, !, write('Don't call me'), fail.
rule2 :- 1<5.
In modern Prologs we don't find so often the ancestors/1 predicate anymore.
But it can be simulated along the following lines. Just throw an error, and
in case that the error is adorned with a stack trace, you get all you need:
ancestors(L) :- catch(sys_throw_error(ignore),error(ignore,L),true).
But beware stack eliminiation optimization might reduce the stack and thus
the list returned by ancestors/1.
Best Regards
P.S.: Stack elimination optimization is already explained here:
[4] Warren, D.H.D. (1983): An Abstract Prolog Instruction Set, Technical Note 309, SRI International, October, 1983
A discussion for Jekejeke Prolog is found here:
http://www.jekejeke.ch/idatab/doclet/prod/en/docs/10_pro08/13_press/03_bench/05_optimizations/03_stack.html
I have this code in Prolog:
dynamic(player_at/1).
player_at(house).
goto(X) :- retract(player_at(house)), assert(player_at(X)).
But I still get this error:
uncaught exception: error(permission_error(modify,static_procedure,player_at/1),retract/1)
when I execute goto(foo).
I've read the dynamic documentation, but I can't figure out how to use it, at least in gprolog. Am I missing something?
Fix the first line by prepending :-:
:- dynamic(player_at/1).
Without :- the line would dreefine predicate dynamic/1, instead of executing the existing dynamic predicate.
Other prolog implementations (but not gprolog) support this as well:
:- dynamic player_at/1.