Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!goanna!ok
From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Programs as data
Keywords: lisp, prolog
Message-ID: <6571@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au>
Date: 30 Jun 91 10:50:35 GMT
References: <4671@optima.cs.arizona.edu> <1991Jun28.133708.3776@watserv1.waterloo.edu>
Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
Lines: 18

In article <1991Jun28.133708.3776@watserv1.waterloo.edu>, mhcoffin@tolstoy.waterloo.edu (Michael Coffin) writes:
> It's true that Prolog handles programs-as-data nicely, but I don't
> think it's true that Prolog has a conventional syntax.

Prolog syntax is (extensible) operator-precedence.  That's about as
conventional as you can get.

> Other than
> using infix notation, it looks nothing like any of the popular
> languages.  That's not surprising; Prolog almost entirely lacks
> explicit control structures, which are everywhere in conventional
> languages. 

Prolog has sequence and if->then;else.  What's missing?  Assignment
and `obvious' while-loops, which go together.

-- 
I agree with Jim Giles about many of the deficiencies of present UNIX.