-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Nullary Predicate Syntax #52
Comments
A related thought: maybe we can solve the user error problem by making sure that we have clear error messages. When I tried |
I am in favour of enforcing parentheses for nullary predicates. Although I don't mind the other options. I think the relational algebra operators would all work the same way, just that we'd be working on Regardless, it would improve readability if we just stuck to one (instead of making it optional). |
Just my personal opinion... but I actually prefer no parenthesis if we have to enforce either one or the other, since being able to just write |
Currently, nullary predicates are denoted as identifiers without parentheses, e.g.
a :- b, c
. @maowtm suggested to consider using the syntax with()
, e.g.a() :- b(), c()
. The parentheses can also be optional. Here are my thoughts about this:Without parentheses
With parentheses
ubuntu
might be more intuitive thanubuntu()
, since it is just a reference to an image, and not a callWith optional parentheses
a :- b(), c
is the same asa() :- b, c()
@barr , @thevirtuoso1973 , what are your thoughts about it?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: