trealla
trealla copied to clipboard
trealla-prolog
Write-option max_depth/1
This is currently an implementation specific extension, but it is handled incorrectly:
?- write_term(t,[max_depth(-1)]).
t true, unexpected.
domain_error(write_option,max_depth(-1)). % expected
?- write_term(t,[max_depth(a)]).
t true, unexpected.
domain_error(write_option,max_depth(a)). % expected
?- write_term(t,[max_depth(1+1)]).
t true, unexpected.
domain_error(write_option,max_depth(1+1)). % expected
p(1).
p(X+1):-p(X).
?- p(L), write_term(L,[max_depth(3)]).
?- p(L), write_term(L,[max_depth(3)]).
1 L = 1
; 1+1 L = 1+1
; 1+1+1 L = 1+1+1
; 1+1+1+1 L = 1+1+1+1 % unexpected. Expected ... + ... +1+1
; ... .
And here it is perfect:
?- length(L,N), write_term(L,[max_depth(3)]).
[] L = [], N = 0
; [_13] L = [_A], N = 1
; [_13,_18] L = [_A,_B], N = 2
; [_13,_18,_23] L = [_A,_B,_C], N = 3
; [_13,_18,_23|...] L = [_A,_B,_C,_D], N = 4
; ... .
Trealla Prolog (c) Infradig 2020-2023, v2.21.31
?- write_term(t,[max_depth(-1)]).
error(domain_error(write_option,max_depth(-1)),write_term/2).
t?-
^^ unexpected t
Sorry, fixed now. Only the first part of issue though, not the ... part.
On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 6:26 PM UWN @.***> wrote:
Trealla Prolog (c) Infradig 2020-2023, v2.21.31 ?- write_term(t,[max_depth(-1)]). error(domain_error(write_option,max_depth(-1)),write_term/2). t?- ^^ unexpected t
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/trealla-prolog/trealla/issues/250#issuecomment-1628487096, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFNKSETV7WTQFO65UU2TDWTXPO4DLANCNFSM6AAAAAA2EDPZWM . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>
Pushed tests for this de facto standard option (of the Prolog systems supported by Logtalk, only B-Prolog, CxProlog, and JIProlog fail to support it):
$ logtalk_tester -p trealla -s Documents/Logtalk/
% Batch testing started @ 2023-07-10 10:20:44
% Logtalk version: 3.68.0-b01
% Trealla Prolog version: 2.21.32
%
% /Users/pmoura/Documents/Logtalk/logtalk3/tests/prolog/predicates/write_term_3
% 130 tests: 0 skipped, 130 passed, 0 failed (0 flaky)
% completed tests from object tests in 2 seconds
% clause coverage n/a
%
% 1 test sets: 1 completed, 0 skipped, 0 broken, 0 timedout, 0 crashed
% 130 tests: 0 skipped, 130 passed, 0 failed (0 flaky)
%
% Batch testing ended @ 2023-07-10 10:20:47
The main difference I found in error-checking is with negative depth values. Ciao Prolog, LVM, SICStus Prolog, Trealla Prolog, and XSB throw a domain error. But others like ECLiPSe, GNU Prolog, and SWI-Prolog accept them. YAP doesn't try to type-check the depth.
?- D=3,write_term([1,2,3,4],[max_depth(3)]). [1,2,3|...] D = 3. % OK ?- D=3,write_term([1,2,3,4],[max_depth(D)]). [1,2,3,4] D = 3, unexpected.
Fix pushed for this, used wrong issue # in commit.
On Mon, 10 July 2023, 20:27 UWN, @.***> wrote:
?- D=3,write_term([1,2,3,4],[max_depth(3)]). [1,2,3|...] D = 3. % OK ?- D=3,write_term([1,2,3,4],[max_depth(D)]). [1,2,3,4] D = 3, unexpected.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/trealla-prolog/trealla/issues/250#issuecomment-1628666875, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFNKSESVU3E5SVB5RKKXWEDXPPKK7ANCNFSM6AAAAAA2EDPZWM . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>
Taking the observations from https://github.com/didoudiaz/gprolog/issues/56
-
The printed term is exactly like the original term with some non-variable subterms replaced by the atom
... -
When replacing the atom
...by fresh new variables, the resulting term has the original term as an instance.
The 2nd point now works, the first not.
Here is a comparison with SICStus which seems the way to go except for 4-1:
?- nth1(I,[1+2+3+4,_^_^_^_^_,1^2^3^4^nil,[1,2,3,4],[_,_,_,_]],T),
between(0,5,D), write(I-D), write(' '), write_term(T,[max_depth(D)]), nl, false.
% SICStus % Trealla
1-0 1+2+3+4 1-0 1+2+3+4
1-1 ... + ... 1-1 ... + ...
1-2 ... + ... +4 1-2 ... + ... +4
1-3 ... + ... +3+4 1-3 ... + ... +3+4
1-4 1+2+3+4 1-4 1+2+3+4
1-5 1+2+3+4 1-5 1+2+3+4
2-0 _1143^_1179^_1215^_1251^_1287 2-0 _1^_2^_3^_4^_5
2-1 _1143^ ... 2-1 ... ^ ...
2-2 _1143^_1179^ ... 2-2 _1^ ... ^ ...
2-3 _1143^_1179^_1215^ ... 2-3 _1^_2^ ... ^ ...
2-4 _1143^_1179^_1215^_1251^_1287 2-4 _1^_2^_3^ ... ^ ...
2-5 _1143^_1179^_1215^_1251^_1287 2-5 _1^_2^_3^_4^_5
3-0 1^2^3^4^nil 3-0 1^2^3^4^nil
3-1 ... ^ ... 3-1 ... ^ ...
3-2 1^ ... ^ ... 3-2 1^ ... ^ ...
3-3 1^2^ ... ^ ... 3-3 1^2^ ... ^ ...
3-4 1^2^3^ ... ^ ... 3-4 1^2^3^ ... ^ ...
3-5 1^2^3^4^nil 3-5 1^2^3^4^nil
4-0 [1,2,3,4] 4-0 [1,2,3,4]
4-1 [...|...] 4-1 [...|...] Suggested: [1|...]
4-2 [1,2|...] 4-2 [...,...|...]
4-3 [1,2,3|...] 4-3 [1,2,3|...]
4-4 [1,2,3,4] 4-4 [1,2,3,4]
4-5 [1,2,3,4] 4-5 [1,2,3,4]
5-0 [_1581,_1613,_1645,_1677] 5-0 [_6,_7,_8,_9]
5-1 [_1581|...] 5-1 [...|...]
5-2 [_1581,_1613|...] 5-2 [...,...|...]
5-3 [_1581,_1613,_1645|...] 5-3 [_6,_7,_8|...]
5-4 [_1581,_1613,_1645,_1677] 5-4 [_6,_7,_8,_9]
5-5 [_1581,_1613,_1645,_1677] 5-5 [_6,_7,_8,_9]
Trealla Prolog (c) Infradig 2020-2023, v2.21.31 ?- write_term(t,[max_depth(-1)]). error(domain_error(write_option,max_depth(-1)),write_term/2). t?- ^^ unexpected t
Added a test for this unexpected output. With v2.22.0 (916748d49aae5f8bcfedc27eb4a49653c6f5c376), this and other new tests all pass:
$ logtalk_tester -p trealla -s ~/Documents/Logtalk/
% Batch testing started @ 2023-07-11 11:02:59
% Logtalk version: 3.68.0-b01
% Trealla Prolog version: 2.22.0
%
% logtalk3/tests/prolog/predicates/write_term_3
% 134 tests: 0 skipped, 134 passed, 0 failed (0 flaky)
% completed tests from object tests in 1 second
% clause coverage n/a
%
% 1 test sets: 1 completed, 0 skipped, 0 broken, 0 timedout, 0 crashed
% 134 tests: 0 skipped, 134 passed, 0 failed (0 flaky)
%
% Batch testing ended @ 2023-07-11 11:03:02
``
Now:
?- nth0(I,[A+B+C+D,1+2+3+4,A^B^C^D^E,1^2^3^4^nil,[1,2,3,4],[A,B,C,D],[- -A,- -B,- -C,- -D],[[A,B,C,D]],[[[[[A,B,C,D]]]]]],T),
between(0,5,M), write(I-M), write(' '),
write_term(T,[variable_names(['A'=A,'B'=B,'C'=C,'D'=D,'E'=E]),max_depth(M)]), nl, false.
SICStus Trealla
0-0 A+B+C+D 0-0 A+B+C+D
0-1 ... +D 0-1 ... + ...
0-2 ... +C+D 0-2 ... + ... +D
0-3 A+B+C+D 0-3 ... + ... +C+D
0-4 A+B+C+D 0-4 A+B+C+D
0-5 A+B+C+D 0-5 A+B+C+D
1-0 1+2+3+4 1-0 1+2+3+4
1-1 ... + ... 1-1 ... + ...
1-2 ... + ... +4 1-2 ... + ... +4
1-3 ... + ... +3+4 1-3 ... + ... +3+4
1-4 1+2+3+4 1-4 1+2+3+4
1-5 1+2+3+4 1-5 1+2+3+4
2-0 A^B^C^D^E 2-0 A^B^C^D^E
2-1 A^ ... 2-1 ... ^ ...
2-2 A^B^ ... 2-2 A^ ... ^ ...
2-3 A^B^C^ ... 2-3 A^B^ ... ^ ...
2-4 A^B^C^D^E 2-4 A^B^C^ ... ^ ...
2-5 A^B^C^D^E 2-5 A^B^C^D^E
3-0 1^2^3^4^nil 3-0 1^2^3^4^nil
3-1 ... ^ ... 3-1 ... ^ ...
3-2 1^ ... ^ ... 3-2 1^ ... ^ ...
3-3 1^2^ ... ^ ... 3-3 1^2^ ... ^ ...
3-4 1^2^3^ ... ^ ... 3-4 1^2^3^ ... ^ ...
3-5 1^2^3^4^nil 3-5 1^2^3^4^nil
4-0 [1,2,3,4] 4-0 [1,2,3,4]
4-1 [...|...] 4-1 [1|...]
4-2 [1,2|...] 4-2 [1,2|...]
4-3 [1,2,3|...] 4-3 [1,2,3|...]
4-4 [1,2,3,4] 4-4 [1,2,3,4]
4-5 [1,2,3,4] 4-5 [1,2,3,4]
5-0 [A,B,C,D] 5-0 [A,B,C,D]
5-1 [A|...] 5-1 [A|...]
5-2 [A,B|...] 5-2 [A,B|...]
5-3 [A,B,C|...] 5-3 [A,B,C|...]
5-4 [A,B,C,D] 5-4 [A,B,C,D]
5-5 [A,B,C,D] 5-5 [A,B,C,D]
6-0 [- -A,- -B,- -C,- -D] 6-0 [- -A,- -B,- -C,- -D]
6-1 [...|...] 6-1 [- ...|...]
6-2 [- ...,- ...|...] 6-2 [- ...,- ...|...]
6-3 [- -A,- -B,- ...|...] 6-3 [- ...,- ...,- ...|...]
6-4 [- -A,- -B,- -C,- ...] 6-4 [- -...,- -...,- -...,- -...]
6-5 [- -A,- -B,- -C,- -D] 6-5 [- -A,- -B,- -C,- -D]
7-0 [[A,B,C,D]] 7-0 [[A,B,C,D]]
7-1 [...] 7-1 [[...|...]]
7-2 [[A|...]] 7-2 [[...,...|...]]
7-3 [[A,B|...]] 7-3 [[A,B,C|...]]
7-4 [[A,B,C|...]] 7-4 [[A,B,C,D]]
7-5 [[A,B,C,D]] 7-5 [[A,B,C,D]]
8-0 [[[[[A,B,C,D]]]]] 8-0 [[[[[A,B,C,D]]]]]
8-1 [...] 8-1 [[...]]
8-2 [[...]] 8-2 [[...]]
8-3 [[[...]]] 8-3 [[[...]]]
8-4 [[[[...]]]] 8-4 [[[...]]]
8-5 [[[[[A|...]]]]] 8-5 [[[[...]]]]
Do you really intend to replace variables by ...? It starts with 0-1... 4-1 is definitely an improvement. But what happens in 8 is not clear to me at all, with increasing depth, also the lists should resurface, one by one.
It's ongoing work.
On Thu, 13 July 2023, 13:29 UWN, @.***> wrote:
Now:
?- nth0(I,[A+B+C+D,1+2+3+4,A^B^C^D^E,1^2^3^4^nil,[1,2,3,4],[A,B,C,D],[- -A,- -B,- -C,- -D],[[A,B,C,D]],[[[[[A,B,C,D]]]]]],T), between(0,5,M), write(I-M), write(' '), write_term(T,[variable_names(['A'=A,'B'=B,'C'=C,'D'=D,'E'=E]),max_depth(M)]), nl, false.
SICStus Trealla 0-0 A+B+C+D 0-0 A+B+C+D 0-1 ... +D 0-1 ... + ... 0-2 ... +C+D 0-2 ... + ... +D 0-3 A+B+C+D 0-3 ... + ... +C+D 0-4 A+B+C+D 0-4 A+B+C+D 0-5 A+B+C+D 0-5 A+B+C+D 1-0 1+2+3+4 1-0 1+2+3+4 1-1 ... + ... 1-1 ... + ... 1-2 ... + ... +4 1-2 ... + ... +4 1-3 ... + ... +3+4 1-3 ... + ... +3+4 1-4 1+2+3+4 1-4 1+2+3+4 1-5 1+2+3+4 1-5 1+2+3+4 2-0 A^B^C^D^E 2-0 A^B^C^D^E 2-1 A^ ... 2-1 ... ^ ... 2-2 A^B^ ... 2-2 A^ ... ^ ... 2-3 A^B^C^ ... 2-3 A^B^ ... ^ ... 2-4 A^B^C^D^E 2-4 A^B^C^ ... ^ ... 2-5 A^B^C^D^E 2-5 A^B^C^D^E 3-0 1^2^3^4^nil 3-0 1^2^3^4^nil 3-1 ... ^ ... 3-1 ... ^ ... 3-2 1^ ... ^ ... 3-2 1^ ... ^ ... 3-3 1^2^ ... ^ ... 3-3 1^2^ ... ^ ... 3-4 1^2^3^ ... ^ ... 3-4 1^2^3^ ... ^ ... 3-5 1^2^3^4^nil 3-5 1^2^3^4^nil 4-0 [1,2,3,4] 4-0 [1,2,3,4] 4-1 [...|...] 4-1 [1|...] 4-2 [1,2|...] 4-2 [1,2|...] 4-3 [1,2,3|...] 4-3 [1,2,3|...] 4-4 [1,2,3,4] 4-4 [1,2,3,4] 4-5 [1,2,3,4] 4-5 [1,2,3,4] 5-0 [A,B,C,D] 5-0 [A,B,C,D] 5-1 [A|...] 5-1 [A|...] 5-2 [A,B|...] 5-2 [A,B|...] 5-3 [A,B,C|...] 5-3 [A,B,C|...] 5-4 [A,B,C,D] 5-4 [A,B,C,D] 5-5 [A,B,C,D] 5-5 [A,B,C,D] 6-0 [- -A,- -B,- -C,- -D] 6-0 [- -A,- -B,- -C,- -D] 6-1 [...|...] 6-1 [- ...|...] 6-2 [- ...,- ...|...] 6-2 [- ...,- ...|...] 6-3 [- -A,- -B,- ...|...] 6-3 [- ...,- ...,- ...|...] 6-4 [- -A,- -B,- -C,- ...] 6-4 [- -...,- -...,- -...,- -...] 6-5 [- -A,- -B,- -C,- -D] 6-5 [- -A,- -B,- -C,- -D] 7-0 [[A,B,C,D]] 7-0 [[A,B,C,D]] 7-1 [...] 7-1 [[...|...]] 7-2 [[A|...]] 7-2 [[...,...|...]] 7-3 [[A,B|...]] 7-3 [[A,B,C|...]] 7-4 [[A,B,C|...]] 7-4 [[A,B,C,D]] 7-5 [[A,B,C,D]] 7-5 [[A,B,C,D]] 8-0 [[[[[A,B,C,D]]]]] 8-0 [[[[[A,B,C,D]]]]] 8-1 [...] 8-1 [[...]] 8-2 [[...]] 8-2 [[...]] 8-3 [[[...]]] 8-3 [[[...]]] 8-4 [[[[...]]]] 8-4 [[[...]]] 8-5 [[[[[A|...]]]]] 8-5 [[[[...]]]]
Do you really intend to replace variables by ...? It starts with 0-1... 4-1 is definitely an improvement. But what happens in 8 is not clear to me at all, with increasing depth, also the lists should resurface, one by one.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/trealla-prolog/trealla/issues/250#issuecomment-1633493091, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFNKSEX5VHULVXENXUB66YDXP5TRXANCNFSM6AAAAAA2EDPZWM . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>