you'll have to jump through hoops -the hoops of defining your higher-level notion of equality- in what ever language you choose.
Right. The author is just disappointed that Prolog does have a built-in "equality" that isn't the equality they want. A nice solution in Prolog would be to write a meta-interpreter or to do term rewriting on the input program. This would allow the author to write
Yes. I just don't see why this is such a big hassle. Particularly because -I'm guessing- whatever the Rust compiler does to decide type equality can't be less hassle-y than that.
But, I might misunderstand the problem since, again, I don't know Rust.
Comments
Right. The author is just disappointed that Prolog does have a built-in "equality" that isn't the equality they want. A nice solution in Prolog would be to write a meta-interpreter or to do term rewriting on the input program. This would allow the author to write
and have it be interpreted asYes. I just don't see why this is such a big hassle. Particularly because -I'm guessing- whatever the Rust compiler does to decide type equality can't be less hassle-y than that.
But, I might misunderstand the problem since, again, I don't know Rust.