Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!decvax!ucbvax!agate!violet.berkeley.edu!ed298-ak
From: ed298-ak@violet.berkeley.edu (Edouard Lagache)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Subject: Re: theorem prover of R. Overbeek (Destructive list predicates)
Message-ID: <7244@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 28 Feb 88 03:53:39 GMT
References: <1150@kulcs.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: lagache@violet.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Edouard Lagache)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 25
Keywords: LISP 'replaca'
Summary: Why don't PROLOGs have an equivalent of 'replaca'

In article <1150@kulcs.UUCP> bimbart@kulcs.UUCP (Bart Demoen) writes:
>I have been busy with the theorem prover of R. Overbeek, which was used
	.
	.
	.
>For destructive assignment, I implemented (in the BIMprolog kernel of course) a
>predicate
>
>	replaca/3 	arg1 : a compound term
>			arg2 : an integer between 1 and the arity of arg1
>			arg3 : anything

	^^^^^^^^^


	Here is an item that has interested me almost since I started using
	PROLOG.  Why aren't destructive list predicates a part of PROLOG?
	I must say that I haven't missed them much in my programming but I
	have been avoiding lists with a passion.  When lists and speed are
	needed, destructive list predicates would seem to be desirable.

	So what you do say folks?  Shouldn't destructive manipulation be
	a part of PROLOG (or is it a part of most PROLOGs already?)

							Edouard Lagache