- From: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:36:49 -0700
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Too much sugar leads to bloat and rot. It's not very good for language design either :-) This has been Christian's pet PRD feature for so long, I've grown tired of arguing about it. I think all the dialects, PRD included, can do without this sugar. I prefer treating all the conditions uniformly, i.e. Forall (x) Q :- P AND C(x) Dave Reynolds wrote: > Chris Welty wrote: >> >> At the F2F12, there was discussion of "bounded quantifiers" (e.g. >> Forall (x in C) ...) in PRD, and the suggestion was made to put them >> in Core, and thus into BLD as well. >> >> This would require re-issuing LC for BLD. >> >> >> It seems to me this could be done simply as syntactic sugar, ie >> >> Forall (x in C) Q :- P >> >> is syntactic sugar for >> >> Forall (x) Q :- P AND C(x) >> >> and just allows an implementor to more easily recognize the >> restriction on the quantification (this is a common source of >> optimization in implementations). >> >> Anyway, let's have a brief discussion about the pros/cons on Tuesday. > > It seems like a simple bit of syntactic sugar and if that noticeably > helps uptake then it may be worth doing. I certainly wouldn't object > to it if that is the consensus. > > However, I don't quite see why detecting that there are terms of the > form C(x) in a rule premise is such a hard job and so why a custom > syntax really helps that much with implementing such optimizations. > > Would the syntactic sugar really be needed in Core (and thus BLD) or > would it only be needed in PRD? > > Dave
Received on Monday, 16 March 2009 17:38:15 UTC