Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!olivea!mintaka!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!tcdcs!swift.cs.tcd.ie!brady
From: brady@swift.cs.tcd.ie
Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Subject: Re: Garbage collecting names in Prolog
Message-ID: <1991Apr17.105714.7876@swift.cs.tcd.ie>
Date: 17 Apr 91 10:57:14 GMT
References: <1991Apr5.143158.7857@swift.cs.tcd.ie> <5218@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> <1991Apr16.124755.868@sics.se>
Organization: Computer Science Department, Trinity College Dublin
Lines: 12

In article <1991Apr16.124755.868@sics.se>, roland@sics.se (Roland Karlsson) writes:
> 
> The current_atom/1 and current_functor/2 assumes that you somewhere
> have stored a set of atoms or functors.  What set????  In practice
> those two predicates are meaningless and should not be implemented.
> 

This and previous messages are interesting. Does _anyone_ use
current_atom or current_functor for anything?

Mike
brady@cs.tcd.ie