Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!vax.oxford.ac.uk!POPX
From: POPX@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Jocelyn Paine)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Subject: Specifying types
Message-ID: <9106111357.AA29175@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 11 Jun 91 13:41:00 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Lines: 23

Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Subject: Specifying types
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Reply-To: popx@vax.ox.ac.uk (Jocelyn Paine)
Followup-To:
Distribution: comp.lang.prolog
Organization: Experimental Psychology, Oxford University, UK.
Keywords:

Is there a generally accepted notation for specifying types in Prolog?
I realise of course that Prolog itself lacks compile-time type-checking,
but there do exist programs for inferring types and checking these
against annotations added to the code. Are any of these programs in wide
enough use to merit adopting their notation for types as a de facto
standard?

If so, are any of them in the public domain? I have the type-checker
from Edinburgh Tools, but it relies on some oddities of DEC-10 Prolog
(won't run under Poplog for example), and doesn't handle modules.

                                            Jocelyn Paine