As of SWI-Prolog version 7, quoted atoms loose their operator
property. This means that expressions such as A = 'dynamic'/1
are valid syntax, regardless of the operator definitions. From questions
on the mailinglist this is what people expect.127We
believe that most users expect an operator declaration to define a new
token, which would explain why the operator name is often quoted in the
declaration, but not while the operator is used. We are afraid that
allowing for this easily creates ambiguous syntax. Also, many
development environments are based on tokenization. Having dynamic
tokenization due to operator declarations would make it hard to support
Prolog in such editors. To accomodate for real quoted
operators, a quoted atom that needs quotes can still act as an
operator.128Suggested by Joachim
Schimpf. A good use-case for this is a unit library129https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.prolog/ozqdzI-gi_g/2G16GYLIS0IJ,
which allows for expressions such as below.
?- Y isu 600kcal - 1h*200'W'. Y = 1790400.0'J'.
As of SWI-Prolog version 7, the system supports compound terms
that have no arguments. This implies that e.g., name()
is
valid syntax. This extension aims at functions on dicts (see section
5.4) as well as the implementation of domain specific languages
(DSLs). To minimise the consequences, the classic predicates functor/3
and =../2 have not been
modified. The predicates compound_name_arity/3
and
compound_name_arguments/3
have been added. These predicates operate only on compound terms and
behave consistently for compounds with zero arguments. Code that generalises
a term using the sequence below should generally be changed to use compound_name_arity/3.
..., functor(Specific, Name, Arity), functor(General, Name, Arity), ...,
Replacement of =../2 by compound_name_arguments/3 is typically needed to deal with code that follow the skeleton below.
..., Term0 =.. [Name|Args0], maplist(convert, Args0, Args), Term =.. [Name|Args], ...,
For predicates, goals and arithmetic functions (evaluable terms), <name> and <name>() are equivalent. Below are some examples that illustrate this behaviour.
go() :- format('Hello world~n'). ?- go(). Hello world ?- go. Hello world ?- Pi is pi(). Pi = 3.141592653589793. ?- Pi is pi. Pi = 3.141592653589793.
Note that the cannonical representation of predicate heads
and functions without arguments is an atom. Thus, clause(go(),
Body)
returns the clauses for go/0,
but clause(-Head, -Body, +Ref)
unifies Head with
an atom if the clause specified by Ref is part of a predicate
with zero arguments.
Introducing curly bracket and array subscripting.130Introducing
block operators was proposed by Jose Morales. It was discussed in the
Prolog standardization mailing list, but there were too many conflicts
with existing extensions (ECLiPSe and B-Prolog) and doubt about their
need to reach an agreement. Increasing need to get to some solution
resulted in what is documented in this section. These extensions are
also implemented in recent versions of YAP. The symbols []
and
{}
may be declared as an operator, which has the following
effect:
yf
postfix operator, which allows for array[index]
notation.
This syntax produces a term []([index],array)
.xf
postfix operator, which allows for head(arg) { body }
notation. This syntax produces a term {}({body},head(arg))
.
Below is an example that illustrates the representation of a typical `curly bracket language' in Prolog.
?- op(100, xf, {}). ?- op(100, yf, []). ?- op(1100, yf, ;). ?- displayq(func(arg) { a[10] = 5; update(); }). {}({;(=([]([10],a),5),;(update()))},func(arg))