I don't understand.... why would you want to write this convoluted, contrived functional style just so it could be translated into miniKanren? Why not just write it in miniKanren in the first place? (Or just use Prolog).
That sounded mean... I didn't mean it meanly, I just don't see the pay off, but I'm interested in the intersection of FP and LP, and would like to know why this seems preferable for anyone.
bathotic I believe the idea they were trying to illustrate is that it is possible to go from functional to relational through a series of mechanical transformations; it follows that it is also possible, and perhaps even simple, to write a program that can translate from Racket to miniKanren, and vice versa. I'm not sure they were advocating that anyone actually program in this style when, as you say, they could just write their programs in one language or the other.
