Denys Duchier wrote:
> Denys.Duchier@ps.uni-sb.de (Denys Duchier) writes:
>
> > My point is that he really doesn't want `or', he wants `cond'.
>
> On the other hand, if you want both a `cond'-like combinator and the
> ability to enumerate the remaining alternatives if none becomes
> entailed, then it is a bit harder. You cannot put a control variable
> in any of the guards since it would prevent entailment even if it were
> possible.
> [...]
I don't understand your comment. I am not suggesting to use the control
variable in the guards of the conditional but in the guards of the or.
Would you please have a look at my proposal and tell me what is wrong with
it?
cond
Constraint_0 then C=0
[] Constraint_1 then C=1
.
.
.
[] Constraint_n then C=n
end
or
c=0 Constraint_0
[]
c=1 Constraint_1
[]
.
.
.
[]
c=n Constraint_n
end
Actually, this one is a bit different since just one conditional is needed.
Moreover, with this approach the problem of having several constraints
entailed is also solved.
Luis
-- Catholic University of Louvain Department of Computing Science and Engineering Place Sainte Barbe, 2 B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium Phone: (++32) (10) 47 90 13 Fax: (++32) (10) 45 03 45 E-mail: luque@info.ucl.ac.be- Please send submissions to users@mozart-oz.org and administriva mail to users-request@mozart-oz.org. The Mozart Oz web site is at http://www.mozart-oz.org/.