I see. And about Silk is the same story ?. It also uses its own implementation of HiLog instead of XSB's native one ?
I am wondering if a correct conclusion of this is that I should avoid to use the XSB implementation of HiLog in new Prolog projects ?, and if eventually I am interested in doing something with HiLog in the future I should take a look to Flora ?
De : David Warren <email@example.com>
À : Miguel Calejo <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Sergio Castro <email@example.com>
Cc : "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
Envoyé le : Lundi 18 mars 2013 21h03
Objet : RE: [Xsb-development] Question about Hilog terms in XSB
Actually Flora, which is implemented with a translator to XSB source code, does support the Flora version of HiLog. But it does not use XSB’s implementation
of HiLog. It uses its own translation to standard prolog predicates. Michael Kifer (and his student who wrote the Flora compiler) found that XSB’s support for HiLog did not really provide the functionality they wanted, so they rolled their own.
From: Miguel Calejo [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 10:50 AM
To: Sergio Castro
Subject: Re: [Xsb-development] Question about Hilog terms in XSB
On Mar 18, 2013, at 12:45 , Sergio Castro wrote:
I am wondering how important is for XSB the support for proper Hilog terms (i.e. compounds having as functors arbitrary terms). Are there many XSB projects
currently using this feature ? which of them for example ?
I ask since as far as I understand
Specifically, I would like to understand if the usage of Hilog terms have further applications and if it is still regarded as a powerful feature in a Prolog
like logic language, or if it is supported in XSB rather for historical reasons.