Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Subject: A library(pio) for the Web 2.0 (Was: Prolog missed the Web 2.0
 Bandwagon)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 15:17:09 +0200
Message-ID: <103gssk$18ffa$1@solani.org>
References: <1034bs9$1364p$1@solani.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 13:17:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: solani.org;
	logging-data="1326570"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:128.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/128.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.21
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BDk/ma0Ok9CDZ6Y84qfvQGZzfNw=
In-Reply-To: <1034bs9$1364p$1@solani.org>
X-User-ID: eJwNyMEBwCAIA8CVBEko4xSJ+4/Q3vOwaTwZBAMXdwYnxtS5NYt/NEg3810w4YGXZ8eIy9F6NSNVndOBZHxc7hXM

Hi,

Why only phrase_from_file/2 and not also
phrase_from_url/2. Its not that difficult to
do, you can do it with change_arg/2 and

nothing else! Lets see what we have so far:

Trealla Prolog:
    Base on memory mapping chars. So basically
    this could be judged as a further argument
    in favor of chars versus codes. But its
    not Web 2.0, works only for files.

https://github.com/trealla-prolog/trealla/blob/main/library/pio.pl

SWI-Prolog:
    Based on turning a stream into a lazy list.
    Requires attributed variables and repositionable
    streams. The stream is opened with open/3 but
    maybe could be opened with http_open/3 as well?

https://github.com/SWI-Prolog/swipl-devel/blob/master/library/pio.pl

To be continued...

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Web 2.0 is all about incremental content!
> 
>  > don’t think it could really do
>  > the “ghost text” effect.
> 
> It wouldn’t do the ghost text, only assist
> it. There was a misunderstanding how “ghost
> texts” work. Maybe you were thinking, that
> the “ghost text” is part of the first response.
> 
> But usually the “ghost text” is a second response:
> 
>  > waiting for completion candidates to be suggested
> 
> Well you don’t use it for your primary
> typing completion which is preferably fast.
> The first response might give context information,
> for the second request which provides a
> different type of completion.
> 
> But the first response is not responsible
> for any timing towards the second request.
> That anyway happens in the client. And it
> doesn’t hurt if the first response is
> from a stupid channel.
> 
> Web 2.0 is all about incremental content!