Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!dsac.dla.mil!dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil!ntm1169 From: ntm1169@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil (Mott Given) Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog Subject: Re: Standard ---> IBM PROLOG translation Message-ID: <2591@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil> Date: 4 Oct 90 14:20:58 GMT References: <3850@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus Lines: 31 From article <3850@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au>, by ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe): > In article <2574@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil>, ntm1169@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil (Mott Given) writes: > May I respectfully suggest that a better way to translate from Prolog > to IBM PROLOG is to write a Prolog program? I agree with you 100% that a PROLOG translation program would be better than a FILEAID one. I started with the FILEAID one as something that would be much easier to implement. > The thing that puzzles me most is that Chapter 13 of the IBM PROLOG > manual states clearly and explicitly in the very first paragraph that > IBM PROLOG can process programs written with the Edinburgh > syntax and using predicates that are normally part of an [sic] > Prolog implementation for the Edinburgh syntax. IBM MVS PROLOG requires you to implement Edinburgh syntax by individually modifying each aspect of your environment through many "pragma" statements. For example, "pragma(lcomment,1)" allows you to use comments that have more than 1 line (this is shown as an illustration of the granularity of the statements you must specify). The software does not come with any predefined modules or commands that allow you to switch to Edinburgh syntax in a simple way. > I note that >> REPL=(1,0,C":-",C"<-"), > <- and :- are both accepted in *both* syntaxes, and that > IBM PROLOG supports abolish/2, assert/1, asserta/1, ... IBM MVS PROLOG does NOT have abolish/2, assert/1, and asserta/1 defined as built-in predicates in MVS/PROLOG Release 1 Level 0. There are significant differences between the MVS and VM versions of PROLOG.