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: Corr. (Was: A library(pio) for the Web 2.0)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 15:19:32 +0200
Message-ID: <103gt13$18ffa$2@solani.org>
References: <1034bs9$1364p$1@solani.org> <103gssk$18ffa$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 13:19:31 -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:acB/oPFYORASRXOY1jUsU79IfqE=
X-User-ID: eJwFwQkBwDAIA0BLUEi6yuH1L2F3MCrrOkHHYqf9iR8NGuN8uJJHBFxpyzLv0MxWpcVMflt8w05PqEj5+wFCrBVu
In-Reply-To: <103gssk$18ffa$1@solani.org>

Corr.: Typo change_arg/2 ~~> change_arg/3

you can do it with change_arg/3 and nothing else!

Mild Shock schrieb:
> 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!
>