3 ms·
> you'll have to jump through hoops -the hoops of defining your higher-level notion of equality- in what ever language you choose. Right. The author is just di
by tom_mellior 6y ago
> you'll have to jump through hoops -the hoops of defining your higher-level notion of equality- in what ever language you choose.
Right. The author is just disappointed that Prolog does have a built-in "equality" that isn't the equality they want. A nice solution in Prolog would be to write a meta-interpreter or to do term rewriting on the input program. This would allow the author to write
clone(usize).
and have it be interpreted as
clone(A) :- type_equal(A, usize).
- YeGoblynQueenne 6y agoYes. I just don't see why this is such a big hassle. Particularly because -I'm guessing- whatever the Rust compiler does to decide type equality can't be less hassle-y than that. But, I might misunderstand the problem since, again, I don't know Rust.