<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Extensional Higher-Order Logic Programming · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1106.3457/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1106.3457/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Extensional Higher-Order Logic Programming — mentioned by rntz</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11343646</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1106.3457:11343646</guid><pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2016 12:04:27 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;ve just published a draft paper on an entirely different approach to the same problem: instead of creating a higher-order Prolog, we&amp;#x27;ve discovered a functional (and so higher-order) analogue of Datalog, a more limited language (http://www.rntz.net/files/datafun.pdf, on github at https://www.github.com/rntz/datafun) This idea of a higher-order Prolog is very interesting! But it&amp;#x27;s not clear to me how it can be truly extensional without further limiting the language. For there is another reason why Prolog is not extensional: non-termination. As a simple example, consider this program: q(X)…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1106.3457/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.PL</category></item></channel></rss>
