eyeprolog 1.6.0 → 1.6.2

package/examples/book/chapter-11/01-why.pl

@@ -3,15 +3,12 @@
 
 why(
   type(socrates, mortal),
-  proof(
-    goal(type(socrates, mortal)),
-    by(rule("socrates.pl", clause(4))),
-    bindings([binding("X", socrates)]),
-    uses([
-      proof(
-        goal(type(socrates, man)),
-        by(fact("socrates.pl", clause(3)))
-      )
-    ])
+  step(
+    type(socrates, mortal),
+    rule("socrates.pl", clause(4)),
+    ['X' = socrates],
+    [
+      step(type(socrates, man), fact("socrates.pl", clause(3)), [], [])
+    ]
   )
 ).

package/examples/proof/access-control-policy.pl

@@ -1,158 +1,100 @@
 status(test1, policy_passed).
 why(
   status(test1, policy_passed),
-  proof(
-    goal(status(test1, policy_passed)),
-    by(rule("access-control-policy.pl", clause(15))),
-    uses([
-      proof(
-        goal(passes_policy(test1, policy_x)),
-        by(rule("access-control-policy.pl", clause(13))),
-        bindings([binding("Request", test1), binding("Policy", policy_x)]),
-        uses([
-          proof(
-            goal(passes_all_of(test1, policy_x)),
-            by(rule("access-control-policy.pl", clause(10))),
-            bindings([binding("Request", test1), binding("Policy", policy_x)]),
-            uses([
-              proof(
-                goal(policy_request(test1, policy_x)),
-                by(fact("access-control-policy.pl", clause(1)))
-              ),
-              proof(
-                goal(policy(policy_x)),
-                by(fact("access-control-policy.pl", clause(5)))
-              ),
-              proof(
-                goal('\\+'((allOf(policy_x, Claim), '\\+'(has(test1, Claim))))),
-                by(builtin('\\+', 1))
-              )
-            ])
+  step(
+    status(test1, policy_passed),
+    rule("access-control-policy.pl", clause(15)),
+    [],
+    [
+      step(
+        passes_policy(test1, policy_x),
+        rule("access-control-policy.pl", clause(13)),
+        ['Request' = test1, 'Policy' = policy_x],
+        [
+          step(
+            passes_all_of(test1, policy_x),
+            rule("access-control-policy.pl", clause(10)),
+            ['Request' = test1, 'Policy' = policy_x],
+            [
+              step(policy_request(test1, policy_x), fact("access-control-policy.pl", clause(1)), [], []),
+              step(policy(policy_x), fact("access-control-policy.pl", clause(5)), [], []),
+              step('\\+'((allOf(policy_x, Claim), '\\+'(has(test1, Claim)))), builtin('\\+', 1), [], [])
+            ]
           ),
-          proof(
-            goal(passes_any_of(test1, policy_x)),
-            by(rule("access-control-policy.pl", clause(11))),
-            bindings([binding("Request", test1), binding("Policy", policy_x), binding("Claim", claim_c)]),
-            uses([
-              proof(
-                goal(policy_request(test1, policy_x)),
-                by(fact("access-control-policy.pl", clause(1)))
-              ),
-              proof(
-                goal(policy(policy_x)),
-                by(fact("access-control-policy.pl", clause(5)))
-              ),
-              proof(
-                goal(anyOf(policy_x, claim_c)),
-                by(fact("access-control-policy.pl", clause(8)))
-              ),
-              proof(
-                goal(has(test1, claim_c)),
-                by(fact("access-control-policy.pl", clause(4)))
-              )
-            ])
+          step(
+            passes_any_of(test1, policy_x),
+            rule("access-control-policy.pl", clause(11)),
+            ['Request' = test1, 'Policy' = policy_x, 'Claim' = claim_c],
+            [
+              step(policy_request(test1, policy_x), fact("access-control-policy.pl", clause(1)), [], []),
+              step(policy(policy_x), fact("access-control-policy.pl", clause(5)), [], []),
+              step(anyOf(policy_x, claim_c), fact("access-control-policy.pl", clause(8)), [], []),
+              step(has(test1, claim_c), fact("access-control-policy.pl", clause(4)), [], [])
+            ]
           ),
-          proof(
-            goal(passes_none_of(test1, policy_x)),
-            by(rule("access-control-policy.pl", clause(12))),
-            bindings([binding("Request", test1), binding("Policy", policy_x)]),
-            uses([
-              proof(
-                goal(policy_request(test1, policy_x)),
-                by(fact("access-control-policy.pl", clause(1)))
-              ),
-              proof(
-                goal(policy(policy_x)),
-                by(fact("access-control-policy.pl", clause(5)))
-              ),
-              proof(
-                goal('\\+'((noneOf(policy_x, Claim), has(test1, Claim)))),
-                by(builtin('\\+', 1))
-              )
-            ])
+          step(
+            passes_none_of(test1, policy_x),
+            rule("access-control-policy.pl", clause(12)),
+            ['Request' = test1, 'Policy' = policy_x],
+            [
+              step(policy_request(test1, policy_x), fact("access-control-policy.pl", clause(1)), [], []),
+              step(policy(policy_x), fact("access-control-policy.pl", clause(5)), [], []),
+              step('\\+'((noneOf(policy_x, Claim), has(test1, Claim))), builtin('\\+', 1), [], [])
+            ]
           )
-        ])
+        ]
       )
-    ])
+    ]
   )
 ).
 
 reason(test1, "all required claims are present, one allowed claim is present, and no forbidden claim is present").
 why(
   reason(test1, "all required claims are present, one allowed claim is present, and no forbidden claim is present"),
-  proof(
-    goal(reason(test1, "all required claims are present, one allowed claim is present, and no forbidden claim is present")),
-    by(rule("access-control-policy.pl", clause(16))),
-    uses([
-      proof(
-        goal(passes_policy(test1, policy_x)),
-        by(rule("access-control-policy.pl", clause(13))),
-        bindings([binding("Request", test1), binding("Policy", policy_x)]),
-        uses([
-          proof(
-            goal(passes_all_of(test1, policy_x)),
-            by(rule("access-control-policy.pl", clause(10))),
-            bindings([binding("Request", test1), binding("Policy", policy_x)]),
-            uses([
-              proof(
-                goal(policy_request(test1, policy_x)),
-                by(fact("access-control-policy.pl", clause(1)))
-              ),
-              proof(
-                goal(policy(policy_x)),
-                by(fact("access-control-policy.pl", clause(5)))
-              ),
-              proof(
-                goal('\\+'((allOf(policy_x, Claim), '\\+'(has(test1, Claim))))),
-                by(builtin('\\+', 1))
-              )
-            ])
+  step(
+    reason(test1, "all required claims are present, one allowed claim is present, and no forbidden claim is present"),
+    rule("access-control-policy.pl", clause(16)),
+    [],
+    [
+      step(
+        passes_policy(test1, policy_x),
+        rule("access-control-policy.pl", clause(13)),
+        ['Request' = test1, 'Policy' = policy_x],
+        [
+          step(
+            passes_all_of(test1, policy_x),
+            rule("access-control-policy.pl", clause(10)),
+            ['Request' = test1, 'Policy' = policy_x],
+            [
+              step(policy_request(test1, policy_x), fact("access-control-policy.pl", clause(1)), [], []),
+              step(policy(policy_x), fact("access-control-policy.pl", clause(5)), [], []),
+              step('\\+'((allOf(policy_x, Claim), '\\+'(has(test1, Claim)))), builtin('\\+', 1), [], [])
+            ]
           ),
-          proof(
-            goal(passes_any_of(test1, policy_x)),
-            by(rule("access-control-policy.pl", clause(11))),
-            bindings([binding("Request", test1), binding("Policy", policy_x), binding("Claim", claim_c)]),
-            uses([
-              proof(
-                goal(policy_request(test1, policy_x)),
-                by(fact("access-control-policy.pl", clause(1)))
-              ),
-              proof(
-                goal(policy(policy_x)),
-                by(fact("access-control-policy.pl", clause(5)))
-              ),
-              proof(
-                goal(anyOf(policy_x, claim_c)),
-                by(fact("access-control-policy.pl", clause(8)))
-              ),
-              proof(
-                goal(has(test1, claim_c)),
-                by(fact("access-control-policy.pl", clause(4)))
-              )
-            ])
+          step(
+            passes_any_of(test1, policy_x),
+            rule("access-control-policy.pl", clause(11)),
+            ['Request' = test1, 'Policy' = policy_x, 'Claim' = claim_c],
+            [
+              step(policy_request(test1, policy_x), fact("access-control-policy.pl", clause(1)), [], []),
+              step(policy(policy_x), fact("access-control-policy.pl", clause(5)), [], []),
+              step(anyOf(policy_x, claim_c), fact("access-control-policy.pl", clause(8)), [], []),
+              step(has(test1, claim_c), fact("access-control-policy.pl", clause(4)), [], [])
+            ]
           ),
-          proof(
-            goal(passes_none_of(test1, policy_x)),
-            by(rule("access-control-policy.pl", clause(12))),
-            bindings([binding("Request", test1), binding("Policy", policy_x)]),
-            uses([
-              proof(
-                goal(policy_request(test1, policy_x)),
-                by(fact("access-control-policy.pl", clause(1)))
-              ),
-              proof(
-                goal(policy(policy_x)),
-                by(fact("access-control-policy.pl", clause(5)))
-              ),
-              proof(
-                goal('\\+'((noneOf(policy_x, Claim), has(test1, Claim)))),
-                by(builtin('\\+', 1))
-              )
-            ])
+          step(
+            passes_none_of(test1, policy_x),
+            rule("access-control-policy.pl", clause(12)),
+            ['Request' = test1, 'Policy' = policy_x],
+            [
+              step(policy_request(test1, policy_x), fact("access-control-policy.pl", clause(1)), [], []),
+              step(policy(policy_x), fact("access-control-policy.pl", clause(5)), [], []),
+              step('\\+'((noneOf(policy_x, Claim), has(test1, Claim))), builtin('\\+', 1), [], [])
+            ]
           )
-        ])
+        ]
       )
-    ])
+    ]
   )
 ).
 

package/examples/proof/age.pl

@@ -1,71 +1,41 @@
 ageAbove(patH, 'P80Y').
 why(
   ageAbove(patH, 'P80Y'),
-  proof(
-    goal(ageAbove(patH, 'P80Y')),
-    by(rule("age.pl", clause(4))),
-    bindings([binding("S", patH), binding("A", 'P80Y'), binding("B", '1944-08-21'), binding("D", '2026-05-30'), binding("F", 'P81Y9M9D')]),
-    uses([
-      proof(
-        goal(birthDay(patH, '1944-08-21')),
-        by(fact("age.pl", clause(1)))
-      ),
-      proof(
-        goal(duration(check, 'P80Y')),
-        by(fact("age.pl", clause(2)))
-      ),
-      proof(
-        goal(local_time('2026-05-30')),
-        by(fact("age.pl", clause(3)))
-      ),
-      proof(
-        goal(difference('2026-05-30', '1944-08-21', 'P81Y9M9D')),
-        by(library(difference, 3))
-      ),
-      proof(
-        goal(@>('P81Y9M9D', 'P80Y')),
-        by(builtin(@>, 2))
-      )
-    ])
+  step(
+    ageAbove(patH, 'P80Y'),
+    rule("age.pl", clause(4)),
+    ['S' = patH, 'A' = 'P80Y', 'B' = '1944-08-21', 'D' = '2026-05-30', 'F' = 'P81Y9M9D'],
+    [
+      step(birthDay(patH, '1944-08-21'), fact("age.pl", clause(1)), [], []),
+      step(duration(check, 'P80Y'), fact("age.pl", clause(2)), [], []),
+      step(local_time('2026-05-30'), fact("age.pl", clause(3)), [], []),
+      step(difference('2026-05-30', '1944-08-21', 'P81Y9M9D'), library(difference, 3), [], []),
+      step(@>('P81Y9M9D', 'P80Y'), builtin(@>, 2), [], [])
+    ]
   )
 ).
 
 holds_result(test, true).
 why(
   holds_result(test, true),
-  proof(
-    goal(holds_result(test, true)),
-    by(rule("age.pl", clause(5))),
-    bindings([binding("__anon0", patH)]),
-    uses([
-      proof(
-        goal(ageAbove(patH, 'P80Y')),
-        by(rule("age.pl", clause(4))),
-        bindings([binding("S", patH), binding("A", 'P80Y'), binding("B", '1944-08-21'), binding("D", '2026-05-30'), binding("F", 'P81Y9M9D')]),
-        uses([
-          proof(
-            goal(birthDay(patH, '1944-08-21')),
-            by(fact("age.pl", clause(1)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(duration(check, 'P80Y')),
-            by(fact("age.pl", clause(2)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(local_time('2026-05-30')),
-            by(fact("age.pl", clause(3)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(difference('2026-05-30', '1944-08-21', 'P81Y9M9D')),
-            by(library(difference, 3))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(@>('P81Y9M9D', 'P80Y')),
-            by(builtin(@>, 2))
-          )
-        ])
+  step(
+    holds_result(test, true),
+    rule("age.pl", clause(5)),
+    ['__anon0' = patH],
+    [
+      step(
+        ageAbove(patH, 'P80Y'),
+        rule("age.pl", clause(4)),
+        ['S' = patH, 'A' = 'P80Y', 'B' = '1944-08-21', 'D' = '2026-05-30', 'F' = 'P81Y9M9D'],
+        [
+          step(birthDay(patH, '1944-08-21'), fact("age.pl", clause(1)), [], []),
+          step(duration(check, 'P80Y'), fact("age.pl", clause(2)), [], []),
+          step(local_time('2026-05-30'), fact("age.pl", clause(3)), [], []),
+          step(difference('2026-05-30', '1944-08-21', 'P81Y9M9D'), library(difference, 3), [], []),
+          step(@>('P81Y9M9D', 'P80Y'), builtin(@>, 2), [], [])
+        ]
       )
-    ])
+    ]
   )
 ).
 

package/examples/proof/aliases-and-namespaces.pl

@@ -1,78 +1,65 @@
 value(nativeMath, 1.0).
 why(
   value(nativeMath, 1.0),
-  proof(
-    goal(value(nativeMath, 1.0)),
-    by(rule("aliases-and-namespaces.pl", clause(1))),
-    bindings([binding("X", 1.0)]),
-    uses([
-      proof(
-        goal(is(1.0, '+'(0.125, 0.875))),
-        by(builtin(is, 2))
-      )
-    ])
+  step(
+    value(nativeMath, 1.0),
+    rule("aliases-and-namespaces.pl", clause(1)),
+    ['X' = 1.0],
+    [
+      step(is(1.0, '+'(0.125, 0.875)), builtin(is, 2), [], [])
+    ]
   )
 ).
 
 ok(nativeCompare, true).
 why(
   ok(nativeCompare, true),
-  proof(
-    goal(ok(nativeCompare, true)),
-    by(rule("aliases-and-namespaces.pl", clause(2))),
-    uses([
-      proof(
-        goal(<(2, 3)),
-        by(builtin(<, 2))
-      )
-    ])
+  step(
+    ok(nativeCompare, true),
+    rule("aliases-and-namespaces.pl", clause(2)),
+    [],
+    [
+      step(<(2, 3), builtin(<, 2), [], [])
+    ]
   )
 ).
 
 ok(nativeString, true).
 why(
   ok(nativeString, true),
-  proof(
-    goal(ok(nativeString, true)),
-    by(rule("aliases-and-namespaces.pl", clause(3))),
-    uses([
-      proof(
-        goal(matches('scoped retail insight', 'retail|medical')),
-        by(library(matches, 2))
-      )
-    ])
+  step(
+    ok(nativeString, true),
+    rule("aliases-and-namespaces.pl", clause(3)),
+    [],
+    [
+      step(matches('scoped retail insight', 'retail|medical'), library(matches, 2), [], [])
+    ]
   )
 ).
 
 tail(nativeList, "bc").
 why(
   tail(nativeList, "bc"),
-  proof(
-    goal(tail(nativeList, "bc")),
-    by(rule("aliases-and-namespaces.pl", clause(4))),
-    bindings([binding("Tail", "bc"), binding("_head", a)]),
-    uses([
-      proof(
-        goal(=("abc", "abc")),
-        by(builtin(=, 2))
-      )
-    ])
+  step(
+    tail(nativeList, "bc"),
+    rule("aliases-and-namespaces.pl", clause(4)),
+    ['Tail' = "bc", '_head' = a],
+    [
+      step(=("abc", "abc"), builtin(=, 2), [], [])
+    ]
   )
 ).
 
 label(vocabularyExample, "vocabulary names are ordinary predicate names").
 why(
   label(vocabularyExample, "vocabulary names are ordinary predicate names"),
-  proof(
-    goal(label(vocabularyExample, "vocabulary names are ordinary predicate names")),
-    by(rule("aliases-and-namespaces.pl", clause(6))),
-    bindings([binding("Text", "vocabulary names are ordinary predicate names")]),
-    uses([
-      proof(
-        goal(example_label(vocabularyExample, "vocabulary names are ordinary predicate names")),
-        by(fact("aliases-and-namespaces.pl", clause(5)))
-      )
-    ])
+  step(
+    label(vocabularyExample, "vocabulary names are ordinary predicate names"),
+    rule("aliases-and-namespaces.pl", clause(6)),
+    ['Text' = "vocabulary names are ordinary predicate names"],
+    [
+      step(example_label(vocabularyExample, "vocabulary names are ordinary predicate names"), fact("aliases-and-namespaces.pl", clause(5)), [], [])
+    ]
   )
 ).