COP: a simple way to integrate imperative programming and declarative programming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper proposes how to integrate two languages, C++ and Prolog, into one. The resulting language is COP (C++ Or Prolog). The motivation behind this work was to offer in one language two programming styles in order to simplify program writing. For example, an application programmer can use the COP language when it is necessary to program in a procedural or object oriented way (C++) and also with rules (Prolog). Our feeling is that a programmer could benefit from our approach because he or she has the choice to use a programming style adapted to the application needs. We present the COP language. In COP, we try to respect the syntax, the semantics and the philosophies of C++ and Prolog. We define how the two languages can work together. Our approach is to add some features allowing C++ to call Prolog goals. We give all the details that a COP programmer must know in order to use the language; that was possible because we kept our design as simple as we could.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".