In many Prolog systems it is easy to add a new search path for consulting file.
In Yap for example, the predicate I know it is add_to_path(NewPath).
Is there a way to do the same in SWI Prolog ?. My question is specifically about adding one path to the already existing paths, I am aware of the file_search_path/2 predicate for declaring directories, and the cd/1 predicate for changing the current directory, but I would like to know if there is an alternative method, like the one I found in Yap.
thanks in advance !
There are several mechanisms to this. The first one I met was in C-Prolog, which indeed used clauses for library_directory/1. The current SWI-Prolog mechanism is derived from Quintus and also used in SICStus. It generalises from the library_directory/1 approach
be treating expressions of the form <alias>(Path) as a search over the path-alias <alias>.
Paths for an alias are defined using the predicate file_search_path/2. Now, library is just an alias. Normally, libraries are added using a clause file_search_path(library, Dir).
This mechanism has proven to be pretty flexible. Of course, it would be nice if Prolog systems get more compatible here. I think todays YAP also supports the file_search_path system. (2016 Edit: It does indeed, see YAP Prolog User's Manual: Changing the Compiler’s Behavior)
In your .plrc/.yaprc/.sicstusrc/.swiplrc:
:- multifile(library_directory/1).
library_directory('/home/ulrich/lftp/Prolog-inedit').
Related
Being new to prolog I am reading existing code (as well as trying to write some code). Having some prior background in semweb I started to play with it and see something that is confusing me. Example assertion:
?- rdf_assert(ex:bob, rdf:type, foaf:'Person').
I also did find the following in the documentation:
Remember: Internally, all resources are atoms. The transformations
above are realised at compile-time using rules for goal_expansion/2
provided by the rdf_db library
Am I correct in assuming that somehow the library is treating the three URIs as atoms? I thought that the compiler would treat this as module_name:predicate, but that does not seem to be the case. If that is true, could you please provide a simple example on how this could be done in prolog?
Thanks
Prolog is not a functional language. This implies 2+3 does not evaluate to 5 and is just a term that gets meaning from the predicate that processes it. Likewise, ex:bob is just a term that has no direct relations to modules or
predicates. Only predicates such call/1 will interpret this as "call bob in the module ex".
Next to that, (SWI-)Prolog (most Prolog's, but not all) have term expansion that allows you to rewrite the term that is read before it is handed to the compiler. That is used to rewrite the argument of rdf/3: each appearance of prefix:local is expanded to a full atom. You can check that by using listing/1 on predicates that call rdf/3 using the prefix notation.
See also rdf_meta
I am trying to perform the following term_expansion with swipl:
a(asda).
a(astronaut).
term_expansion(a(X),b(X)).
But it does not work, i.e. there is no b/1 consulted. I have tried a few variations:
term_expansion(a(X),[b(X)]).
user:term_expansion(a(X),b(X)).
user:term_expansion(a(X),[b(X)]).
user:term_expansion(user:a(X),[user:b(X)]).
None of which works. What is the problem?
As explained by #mat, you need to define the term_expansion/2 predicate before the clauses you want to expand are loaded. Also, the term_expansion/2 predicate is a multifile and dynamic predicate defined for the user pseudo-module. Thus, you should write:
:- multifile user:term_expansion/2.
:- dynamic user:term_expansion/2.
user:term_expansion(a(X), b(X)).
This will ensure that your expansion code will work if you move it into a module.
If portability to other Prolog systems with a term-expansion mechanism (which, btw, is far from standard), than consider moving the term-expansion code to its own file, loaded before the source files you want to expand.
From reading the manual, I can't seem to find the difference between the two.
The manual says:
It is advised to use retractall/1 for erasing all clauses of a dynamic predicate.
So I chose to use retractall/1 in my program; however, I wonder what the difference is.
The retractall/1 standard built-in predicate can be used to remove all clauses for a dynamic predicate but the predicate will still be known by the runtime. The abolish/1 standard built-in predicate, in the other hand, not only removes all predicate clauses but also makes the predicate unknown to the runtime. If you try to call a dynamic predicate after removing all its clauses using retractall/1, the call simply fails. But if you abolish a dynamic predicate, calling it after will result in a predicate existence error.
In analogy to SQL:
retractall(table_name(_,_,_)) could be delete from table_name, while
abolish(table_name/3) would play as drop table_name
Before I read your question and #PauloMoura's fine answer, I didn't know the answer either.
With this answer I don't want to copy Paulo's answer. Instead, I suggest you consider reading/searching alternative Prolog-related sources:
The ISO directives, control constructs and builtins—iso-prolog on SO
4.12.5 Removing Clauses from the Database—sicstus-prolog manual
8.7 Dynamic clause management—gnu-prolog manual
Chapter 9 Dynamic Clauses and Global Variables—bprolog manual
6.14 Asserting, Retracting, and Other Database Modifications—xsb manual
6.10.1 Modification of the Data Base—part of the yap manual
Note that the above may or may not directly fit the Prolog system you use.
Still, having multiple sources is a good thing: It can keep you from getting stuck!
Is there a workaround to make ensure_loaded/1 work
in GNU Prolog as it works in many other Prolog systems?
The goal is to have a preamble so that the rest of
code can use ensure_loaded/1 independent of whether which
Prolog system I use.
I tried the following:
:- multifile(term_expansion/2).
term_expansion((:- ensure_loaded(X)),
(:- atom_concat('<base>\\', X, Y),
include(Y))).
But the following query doesn't work:
:- ensure_loaded('suite.p').
The path calculation itself is not the issue of the question,
but the redefinition of a directive in GNU Prolog. There is
another directive that causes problems: meta_predicate/1. The
byte code crashes as follows:
Bye
A partial solution is:
ensure_loaded(File) :-
absolute_file_name(File, Path),
( predicate_property(_, prolog_file(Path)) ->
true
; consult(Path)
).
It assumes that the file defines at least one predicate but that's a sensible assumption. However, there's seems to be no way to override the native, non-functional, definition of the ensure_loaded/1 directive. A workaround would be to wrap the ensure_loaded/1 directive within an initialization/1 directive. For example:
:- initialization(ensure_loaded('suite.pl')).
Hence this being a partial solution as we're really defining an ensure_loaded/1 predicate, not a directive.
My current speculation is, that it is impossible with
the standard distribution of GNU Prolog 1.4.4. The
docu says:
The GNU Prolog compiler (section 4.4) automatically calls
expand_term/2 on each Term1 read in. However, in the current release,
only DCG transformation are done by the compiler (i.e.
term_expansion/2 cannot be used). To use term_expansion/2, it is
necessary to call expand_term/2 explicitly.
I also tried to inject some Prolog code for term_expansion/2
via the command line, but to no awail. Although the tool chain
has options such as -O, -L, -A that pass options to other tools.
There is not really an option that passes a Prolog text to the
pl2wam, in course of the execution of a consult/1 issued inside
the top-level.
At least this are my results so far.
Bye
I have a prolog program:
link(liverpool,preston).
link(liverpool,manchester).
link(preston,lancaster).
link(preston,manchester).
link(lancaster,carlisle).
link(lancaster,leeds).
link(carlisle,leeds).
link(manchester,leeds).
%checks to see if X is in the supplied list
inlist( X, [X|_]).
inlist( X, [_|Ys]) :- inlist( X, Ys).
merge([],L,L).
merge([H|T],BList,CList):-
inlist(H,BList),
merge(T,BList,CList).
merge([H|T],BList,[H|CList]):-
merge(T,BList,CList),
not(inlist(H,BList)).
Merge works if I call it like this:
merge([a,b,c],[d,e,f],Result). --> [a,b,c,d,e,f]
or more importantly, what it was designed to solve:
merge([a,b,c],[a,d,e,f],Result). --> [a,b,c,d,e,f]
but if I call merge like this:
merge(X,[d,e,f],[a,b,c,d,e,f]).
There is a stack overflow. Is this generally acceptable behavior for a function that is designed to work one way? Or is there some convention that functions should work in both ways?
Edit: merge works if you call it like this:
merge([a,b,c],X,[a,b,c,d,e,f]). --> [d,e,f]
First, you should not call these "functions". "Predicates" is the correct term.
It's generally desirable for Prolog predicates to work "both ways". But it's not always possible or worth the effort in a particular situation.
To inform about ways a predicate is intended to be used mode-declarations can be used. These declarations conventions are different from system to system. These declarations are mostly serve as a documentation for programmers and rarely used by compilers, but can be used by testing frameworks and other helper tools.
Examples of conventions for mode declarations:
SWI-Prolog: http://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?section=modes
ECLiPSe CLP: http://eclipseclp.org/doc/applications/tutorial003.html#toc10 (scroll to 2.7.3 Mode declaration)
Also there is a convention (described in "The Craft of Prolog", for example) that input parameters of a predicate come first, output parameters come last.