Hacker News Reader

Comment by oats | Hacker News Reader

Is this not almost how logic programming (prolog, etc.) works? You tell the language some things which are true, and then it'll be able to infer answers to "questions" you ask:

https://wiki.c2.com/?LogicProgramming

View on HN

Let's say we work on the "reverse list" function. A few tests I could write are that the following clauses are true:

    rev([1], [1])
    rev([1, 2, 3], [3, 2, 1])

And maybe also that the following clauses are false:

    rev([1, 2], [1, 2])
    rev([], [1])
    rev([1, 1], [1])

Is Prolog able to infer, from the above, that rev([4, 5], [5, 4]) ? Or to synthesize the general form rev([H|T],R) :- rev(T, RT), concat(RT,[H],R) ?

Sounds like NN training that could be achievable. The problem comes with unit testing, because the minimal testable unit could be more complex than a function.

Yeah. I've often seen TDD where you act both as the logic programmer writing the tests and the imperative programmer writing the implementation.

No. Not even a little bit.

Could... could you enlighten me please?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com