Always happy to see new videos of yours, this one actually neatly aligns with what I was trying to get working, but failed to do so for a while. As a little exercise, I wanted to write a custom toplevel as interaction model for a Cluedo solver using CLPFD, but couldn't get the interaction working. Great video, and great timing!
Yes indeed, well spotted! This is made possible by the following improvement in the engine from a few months ago: github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/pull/1879/commits/749619319a40eb82e0649b23ad919cb32bcb781b With this engine improvement, and member/2 defined as in github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/pull/1879/commits/c51ff4c03daad697f2ea77ca03d2b3462439b4d2, a redundant choicepoint is no longer created! Another important class of use-cases that benefit from this engine feature is shown in github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/issues/1028. Such engine improvements have the potential to make many programs easier to read and write and retain very good efficiency.
Markus, if you take requests and feel it would be valuable for your audience, could you do a video on co-routining techniques as they relate to reducing search space? Appreciate the content as always.
Nice video as usual. I don't really agree with the fact that the layout issue is a big one (even if I write my disjunctions with semicolons at the beginning of the line…). I don't really think that ; and , are so close that we cannot distinguish (then the final . would also need to be moved around since it looks even closer to a , 😉)
I have to say, this is one of the best programming language series I've ever seen. I'm always so happy to seen your next video.
Wake up babe new power of prolog dropped
Woooooo
😂
Always happy to see new videos of yours, this one actually neatly aligns with what I was trying to get working, but failed to do so for a while. As a little exercise, I wanted to write a custom toplevel as interaction model for a Cluedo solver using CLPFD, but couldn't get the interaction working. Great video, and great timing!
Interesting that the redundant choice-point is no longer there in up-to-date scryer-prolog.
Yes indeed, well spotted! This is made possible by the following improvement in the engine from a few months ago: github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/pull/1879/commits/749619319a40eb82e0649b23ad919cb32bcb781b
With this engine improvement, and member/2 defined as in github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/pull/1879/commits/c51ff4c03daad697f2ea77ca03d2b3462439b4d2, a redundant choicepoint is no longer created!
Another important class of use-cases that benefit from this engine feature is shown in github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/issues/1028. Such engine improvements have the potential to make many programs easier to read and write and retain very good efficiency.
Markus, if you take requests and feel it would be valuable for your audience, could you do a video on co-routining techniques as they relate to reducing search space? Appreciate the content as always.
informative and useful
Nice video as usual. I don't really agree with the fact that the layout issue is a big one (even if I write my disjunctions with semicolons at the beginning of the line…). I don't really think that ; and , are so close that we cannot distinguish (then the final . would also need to be moved around since it looks even closer to a , 😉)
"How to do better?" -> suggest e.g. Shift-return to show full answers (and maybe Ctrl-return to apply any other writing modalities).