I'm running the following query in a directory having an empty file empty:
?- member(EOF_action,[error,eof_code,reset]), open(empty,read,S,[eof_action(EOF_action)]), stream_property(S,end_of_stream(EOS)), close(S).
Here's what I get from different Prolog systems:
| Prolog system | eof_action(error) | eof_action(eof_code) | eof_action(reset) |
|---|---|---|---|
| SICStus Prolog | not | not | not |
| GNU Prolog | at | at | not |
| Scryer Prolog | at | at | at |
| Traella Prolog | at | at | not |
| SWI-Prolog | not | not | not |
It appears that above systems behave quite differently in this particular corner case.
Does the ISO-Prolog standard specify which behaviour is right for conforming processors?
Does this include empty files, where nothing has been input, although nothing is all we have? Thinking of VSAM ... This remains pretty ambiguous no matter how we twist and turn it.
More important is what happens if we
peek_char/1orget_char/1any further.And even worse whether or not
at_end_of_stream/0/1andstream_property(S, end_of_stream(Eos))are the same, at least for detecting the end the first time.As a quick check enter
(There are two factions, two who fail and those who prompt. In the past there was much more prompting)