这是我试图理解的代码。
co(X) :- co(X,[],L).
co([],A,A):- write(A).
co([X|Xs], A, L) :- p(X-Z,A,R), !, Z1 is Z+1, co(Xs, [X-Z1|R], L).
co([X|Xs], A, L) :- co(Xs, [X-1|A], L).
p(X-Y,[X-Y|R],R):- !.
p(X,[H|Y], [H|Z]) :- p(X,Y,Z).
'!' 有什么用？和上面代码中的谓词 p(,,)。或者任何人都可以在上述代码的每一步中添加注释，以便我能够理解。谢谢。
There are many things to address in your program. Cuts are not even the major concern. Please, bring me the broom.
What is the precise interface you are after? The purpose of co(Xs) currently, is to produce a side effect. Otherwise it can succeed or fail for a given list. But not more than that. Yet, this side effect is not at all needed - and is for most situations not a helpful approach, since such a program is practically unreusable and defies any logical reasoning. You need to leave a hole to let some result lurk out of the relation. Add another argument and remove the goal write/1 in co/3.
co(Xs, D) :-
co(Xs, [], D).
Now you can test the program with the top-level shell alone. You do not need any harness or sandbox to check for the "output". It is there, readily in a separate argument.
Next is co/3 itself. Here, the best is to clarify the intention by separating a bit the concerns, and making these extra arguments a bit more intention-revealing. D stands for dictionary. Another good name would be KVs meaning list (the plural s) of key-value pairs. Note how the different states are numbered: They start with D0, D1, ... and at the end there is D. In this manner, if you start to write a rule, you can put D0,D already in the head without knowing how many states you will need in that rule.
co([], D,D).
co([X|Xs], D0,D) :-
nn(X, D0,D1),
co(Xs, D1,D).
nn(K, D0,D) :-
p(K-V0,D0,D1), !,
V is V0+1,
D = [X-V|D1].
nn(K, D0,D) :-
D = [K-1|D0].
p(X-Y,[X-Y|R],R):- !.
p(X,[H|Y], [H|Z]) :- p(X,Y,Z).
co/3 now more clearly reveals its intention. It somehow relates the elements of a list to some state that is "updated" for each element. There is a word for this: This is a left-fold. And there is even a predicate for it: foldl/4. So we could equally define co/3 as:
co(Xs, D0,D) :-
foldl(nn, Xs, D0,D).
or better get rid of co/3 altogether:
co(Xs, D) :-
foldl(nn, Xs, [], D).
foldl(_C_3, [], S,S).
foldl(C_3, [X|Xs], S0,S) :-
call(C_3, X, S0,S1),
foldl(C_3, Xs, S1,S).
Note, that so far, I have not even touched any cuts of yours, these are now their last moments...
The cut in p/3 does not serve any purpose. There is a cut immediately after the goal p/3 anyway. Then, X-Y is not needed in p/3, you can safely replace it by another variable. In short, p/3 is now the predicate select/3 from the Prolog prologue.
select(E, [E|Xs], Xs).
select(E, [X|Xs], [X|Ys]) :-
select(E, Xs, Ys).
nn(K, D0,D) :-
select(K-V0, D0,D1), !,
V is V0+1,
D = [K-V|D1].
nn(K, D0,D) :-
D = [K-1|D0].
This one remaining cut cannot be removed so easily: it protects the alternate clause from being used should K-V not occur in D. However, there are still better ways to express this.
(\+)/1nn(K, D0,D) :-
select(K-V0, D0,D1),
V is V0+1,
D = [K-V|D1].
nn(K, D0,D) :-
\+select(K-_, D0,_),
D = [K-1|D0].
Now, each rule states what it wants for itself. This means, that we can now freely change the order of those rules. Call it superstition, but I prefer:
nn(K, D0,D) :-
\+select(K-_, D0,_),
D = [K-1|D0].
nn(K, D0,D) :-
select(K-V0, D0,D1),
V is V0+1,
D = [K-V|D1].
dif/2To make this into a true relation, we need to get rid of this negation. Instead of saying, that there is no solution, we can instead demand that all keys (key is the first argument in Key-Value) are different to K.
nokey(_K, []).
nokey(K, [Kx-|KVs]) :-
dif(K, Kx),
nokey(K, KVs).
nn(K, D,[K-1|D]) :-
nokey(K, D).
nn(K, D0,[K-V|D]) :-
select(K-V0, D0,D),
V is V0+1.
With the help of lambdas, nokey(K, D) becomes maplist(K+\(Kx-_)^dif(Kx,K), D)
To summarize, we have now:
co(Xs, D) :-
foldl(nn, Xs, [], D).
nn(K, D,[K-1|D]) :-
maplist(K+\(Kx-_)^dif(Kx,K), D).
nn(K, D0,[K-V|D]) :-
select(K-V0, D0,D),
V is V0+1.
So what is this relation about: The first argument is a list, and the second argument a Key-Value list, with each element and the number of occurrences in the list.
初学者倾向于使用!/0，因为他们没有意识到它的负面后果。
这是因为在初学者中流行的大多数 Prolog 教科书都非常糟糕，并且经常包含有关!/0.
@false 关于何时使用有一个很好的答案!/0。总结：不要。
相反，专注于关于什么是成立的声明性描述，并尝试使用纯粹和单调的方法使描述优雅和通用，如约束，干净的表示，......