Paulo Moura wrote: > Hi! > > In ECLiPSe, reloading a file containing dynamic directives and > dynamic predicates fails to restore the original definitions from the > file. E.g. if the file contains a single clause for a dynamic > predicate, simply reloading it results in two clauses in memory. > Reloading it a second time, results in three repeated clauses and so > on. This is the documented behavior of the compile/1: > > "(...) static procedures are redefined by those occurring in the > compiled file, the clauses of dynamic procedures are appended to the > existing ones." > > Is there any solution to replace the clauses of dynamic predicates > instead of appending them? > > Best regards, > > Paulo > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Paulo Jorge Lopes de Moura > Dep. of Computer Science, University of Beira Interior > 6201-001 Covilhã, Portugal > > Office 4.3 Ext. 3257 > Phone: +351 275319891 Fax: +351 275319899 > Email: <mailto:pmoura_at_...16...> > > Home page: <http://www.di.ubi.pt/~pmoura> > Research: <http://logtalk.org/> > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ECLiPSe-Users mailing list > ECLiPSe-Users_at_...2... > http://www.crosscoreop.com/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-users > Hi Paulo, For dynamic predicates, you can retract them before adding new ones. If you use retract_all/1, you can remove all the definitions of the predicate: [eclipse 6]: [user]. :- dynamic foo/1. foo(a). foo(b). foo(c). user compiled traceable 36 bytes in 0.00 seconds Yes (0.00s cpu) [eclipse 7]: foo(X). X = a Yes (0.00s cpu, solution 1, maybe more) ? ; X = b Yes (0.00s cpu, solution 2, maybe more) ? ; X = c Yes (0.00s cpu, solution 3) [eclipse 9]: retract_all(foo(_)). Yes (0.00s cpu) [eclipse 10]: foo(X). No (0.00s cpu) and you can now add new clauses: [eclipse 11]: [user]. foo(e). foo(f). user compiled traceable 16 bytes in 0.00 seconds Yes (0.00s cpu) [eclipse 12]: foo(X). X = e Yes (0.00s cpu, solution 1, maybe more) ? ; X = f Yes (0.00s cpu, solution 2) You can also use abolish/1 to remove the definitions of predicates. See the predicate description for more details. Cheers, KishReceived on Mon Apr 16 2007 - 02:10:05 CEST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Wed Sep 25 2024 - 15:13:20 CEST