I have looking at the left guard problem. I managed to parse a grammar of the form
term theory_op & theory_atom_name { ... }
term is a term not a theory_term, but theory_op it is a theory operator different from :-. Note that allowing :- as a theory operator in the left guard makes the grammar ambiguous. For instance,
p(X) :- &sum{...}.
could be read as a rule with &sum{...} or as a fact where all of it is a theory atom.
File
libgringo/tests/left_guard.py
contains a test using the python api.
I have a question. I can parse the input, but I don't know how to create the appropriated theory atom. Right now I always create the same guard independently of what I parse. The constructor for a theory atom takes as input a theory term, but I have a regular term.
I assume that I will need to convert the term into a theory term. Does it make sense? Is there a way to do that?
Hi,
I have looking at the left guard problem. I managed to parse a grammar of the form
term theory_op & theory_atom_name { ... }termis a term not a theory_term, but theory_op it is a theory operator different from:-. Note that allowing:-as a theory operator in the left guard makes the grammar ambiguous. For instance,p(X) :- &sum{...}.could be read as a rule with
&sum{...}or as a fact where all of it is a theory atom.File
libgringo/tests/left_guard.pycontains a test using the python api.
I have a question. I can parse the input, but I don't know how to create the appropriated theory atom. Right now I always create the same guard independently of what I parse. The constructor for a theory atom takes as input a theory term, but I have a regular term.
I assume that I will need to convert the term into a theory term. Does it make sense? Is there a way to do that?