From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog
Naive solution with CLP(FD), and without "o" operator.
Why would one use CLP(FD) ? Well you can easily experiment
with forward search and backward search:
/* forward search, first the op/3 and then recursive */
deadfish_(X0, X) -->
{ ops(Op, X0, X1) },
[Op],
deadfish_(X1, X).
/* backward search, first recursive and then op/3 */
deadfish2_(X0, X) -->
[Op],
deadfish2_(X1, X),
{ ops(Op, X0, X1) }.
Which one is faster? Try yourself:
/* GNU Prolog, 1.5.0 */
?- between(1,90,N), once(deadfish(N,_)), fail; true.
(11703 ms) yes
?- between(1,90,N), once(deadfish2(N,_)), fail; true.
(219 ms) yes
But still waiting for more solutions that use tabling!
Mild Shock schrieb am Mittwoch, 4. Oktober 2023 um 21:22:23 UTC+2:
Solve this problem:
Deadfish is one of the best known non Turing-complete programming languages. It has only one accumulator (which starts at 0) to store
data, and only four commands:
i - Increment the accumulator
s - Square the accumulator
d - Decrement the accumulator
o - Output the accumulator
Create a program that will input a number and output Deadfish
code to display the number. It must work for any integer from 0 to 255.
https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/40124/short-deadfish-numbers/
Twist, don't write the solution in Prolog. But in your favorite Prolog
with your favorite state extension. For example Mecury states via
(!)/1 or some other Prolog language extension that helps
dealing with state.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114