Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cstvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!mcvax!ukc!cstvax!db
From: db@cstvax.UUCP (Dave Berry)
Newsgroups: net.lang.prolog
Subject: Re: Prolog: first order??
Message-ID: <315@cstvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Jul-85 11:57:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: cstvax.315
Posted: Tue Jul 23 11:57:02 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 10:03:03 EDT
References: <174@bcsaic.UUCP> <697@water.UUCP>
Reply-To: db@cstvax.UUCP (Dave Berry)
Organization: Comp. Sc., Edinburgh Univ., Scotland
Lines: 15

In article <697@water.UUCP> rggoebel@water.UUCP (Randy Goebel LPAIG) writes:
>> Can someone clear something up for me?  I would have thought that Prolog
>> was *not* "strictly first order logic," because of the existence of
>> predicates like "call" and "=.."...
>
>The semantics of pure Prolog is well understood from a first order viewpoint
>(e.g., see John Lloyd's book ``The Foundations of Logic Programming'',
>Springer-Verlag, 1984). 

There are people in our department who maintain that PROLOG is not first
order *logic* since it relies on features like the ordering of clauses,
and the ordering of goals within a clause.
-- 
	Dave Berry. CS postgrad, Univ. of Edinburgh		
					...mcvax!ukc!{hwcs,kcl-cs}!cstvax!db