Conversation

I do find that I somtimes will do a typo and that results in a foreverlööp, and I _think_ the mode checker from Mercury would catch some of that. Or maybe I'm thinking of the determinism checker…
1
Like, maybe it would be better to say: check : in -> in -> in -> semidet. synth : in -> in -> out -> semidet. To say that both of those might fail, but are otherwise deterministic. Check with an output mode for the type would be: check : in -> in -> out -> nondet.
1
1
Yep. As says, each predicate may have more than one mode in Mercury, each mode has exactly one determinism (can fail, will not fail, may have multiple answers etc). Each time you use a predicate the compiler can figure out which mode of that predicate you need.
1
2
In that way, the compiler knows statically the instantiation state of each variable at each moment of execution. In Prolog this is dynamic and modes are provided mainly as documentation for humans. A variable you encounter may have a value, or no value, or a partial value.
1
2
or may have no value but may also be aliased with other variable with no value! Giving either a value gives the other the same value.
1
Replying to and
Hmm. I'd been wondering what happens in Makam if more than one of the :- lines [dunno right name, don't want to accidentally say wrong one] potentially applies. Is that the nondet/multi case here?
1
2