Christian Schulte wrote:
> I have to admit that I am quite sceptical about your idea but I also
> understand your desire. The current factorization is that only guards are
> "speculative" (in the sense that they might fail and also in that they might
> waste time). You are attempting to make also bodys speculative. This would
> definitely require a whole new setup for combinators. Moreover, you have to
> be really sure that you cannot get what you want by search anyway.
Actually, what I really want is not to fail in cases like the exposed. Even
using our beloved control variables would not avoid failing in this case. One
could think in expressing the case in this way:
C1::1#2
or
C1=1 X=1 Y=2
[]
C1=2 X\=1
end
C2::1#2
or
C2=1 X=1 Y=1
[]
C2=2 X=2
end
and things would seem to be as wanted since both C1=1 and C1=2 entail C2=2, but
what if C2 is first determinate to 1? There would not be determination possible
for C1 therefore the failure would be inevitable.
I think the key question is whether the combinator I am suggesting would indeed
lead us to better results (in term of time consumption) comparing to the ones
already obtained by using the current or + control variables. IMHO, the best
way to find it out is by trying it out :-)
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/.