## User login## Navigation |
## archives## Multimap unificationI strongly believe that prolog-like unification (programming with holes) should be incorporated in every new programming language. One of my arguments is that unification is more general than pattern matching, and that unification is just as natural as pattern matching. In contrast, I find the unification of two sets hardly intuitive. Set unification is not only non-intuitive but also NP complete. Still, I believe that set unification, as a first class operation, is an interesting programming construct. Actually, I'm more interested in the unification of multimaps because they extend sets. My intuition also tells me that multimap unification can be made more efficient in most use-cases. I'm not sure however. Are there any unification 'theorems' that I should consider that counter my intuition? |
## Browse archives## Active forum topics |

## Recent comments

2 hours 51 min ago

3 hours 10 min ago

9 hours 18 min ago

10 hours 47 min ago

13 hours 35 min ago

16 hours 6 min ago

16 hours 42 min ago

20 hours 23 min ago

1 day 5 hours ago

1 day 6 hours ago