Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!mcsun!ub4b!kulcs!hera.cs.kuleuven.ac.be
From: bimbart@hera.cs.kuleuven.ac.be (Bart Demoen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Subject: Re: standards, Scheme, Prolog
Message-ID: <3876@n-kulcs.cs.kuleuven.ac.be>
Date: 12 Jun 91 07:17:44 GMT
Sender: news@cs.kuleuven.ac.be
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science (K.U.Leuven)
Lines: 18
Originator: bimbart@hera.cs.kuleuven.ac.be

In <6209@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> R. O'Keefe writes:

> I think it would be an excellent thing if more of the people
> concerned with the Prolog standard understood the language they
> were standardising.  In particular, one would expect the
> formal specification of Prolog to be _about_ the same size as
> the formal specification of Scheme.

I am afraid I can only understand this the following way:

	people involved in the formal specification of Prolog do not
	understand the language they are standardizing

Is this really what he means ?
If not, it would be nice if he were be very precise and clear about
the fact he doesn't mean this ?

Bart Demoen