Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!ukc!eagle!icdoc!ivax!cdsm
From: cdsm@ivax.doc.ic.ac.uk (Chris Moss)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Subject: Re: My views on developing a PROLOG standard (long but fun!)
Message-ID: <240@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk>
Date: 23 Mar 88 16:20:46 GMT
References: <7847@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: news@doc.ic.ac.uk
Reply-To: cdsm@doc.ic.ac.uk (Chris Moss)
Organization: Dept. of Computing, Imperial College, London, UK.
Lines: 21

In article <7847@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> lagache@violet.berkeley.edu (Edouard Lagache) writes:
>          The matter of greatest concern for me is the question of whose
>     standard will be the standard?  The BSI group is a British standard;
>     Now I hear that the French are working on their own standard (the AFNOR
>     group).  All this is fine and good except that in all likelihood the
>     resulting standards will have about as much similarity with each other
>     as the French and English (natural) languages do (never mind the fact
>     that neither standard will have have much to do with existing practice)
>     - This is progress!?!

You don't understand the way standardizing works. There has been
plenty of communication between AFNOR and BSI -- the two groups ARE
trying to work together. (That doesn't mean they will agree: the
current AFNOR proposal throws out operator definitions altogether and
makes ";" the end of statement marker!) Also the formal semantics has
been fleshed-out by members of AFNOR. Richard's certainty that the
Prolog world begins and ends with Edinburgh is not shared in France!
ANSI has so far declined to set up a Prolog committee.
The AIM is to have one standard. Here's hoping...

Chris Moss.