Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!uwvax!oddjob!ncar!ames!sri-spam!sri-unix!quintus!ok
From: ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Subject: Re: Compilation in Trilogy
Message-ID: <813@cresswell.quintus.UUCP>
Date: 24 Mar 88 06:17:10 GMT
References: <4381@megaron.arizona.edu> <1897@ubc-cs.UUCP> <1901@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
Lines: 19
Keywords: run-time tags, reference counters
Summary: y

In article <1901@ubc-cs.UUCP>, voda@ubc-cs (Paul Voda) writes:
> In article <794@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
> >In article <1897@ubc-cs.UUCP>, voda@ubc-cs (Paul Voda) writes:
> >{ criticising Prolog }
> >>  ...
> >{ praising Trilogy }
> Typical O'Keefe he cannot resist inserting the cute remarks in the brackets!

Don't see slights where none are intended.  The {notes} were not and are not
"cute remarks", they are synopses of a lot of material that I didn't quote.
Should Prolog not be criticised?  Of course not!
Should Trilogy not be praised?  Of course not!
Were the {notes} fair summaries?  Too right they were.

> Here is the answer formulated in a slightly more general setting:
Thank you.

To change the subject a wee bit, what information is available about
the ideas behind Trilogy?  Any UCB reports?