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: BSI syntax
Message-ID: <245@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk>
Date: 25 Mar 88 14:50:49 GMT
References: <234@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk> <797@cresswell.quintus.UUCP>
Sender: news@doc.ic.ac.uk
Reply-To: cdsm@doc.ic.ac.uk (Chris Moss)
Organization: Dept. of Computing, Imperial College, London, UK.
Lines: 59


In article <797@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
>In article <234@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk>, cdsm@doc.ic.ac.uk (Chris Moss) writes:
>> Forwarded for Roger Scowen -- KRG0@gm.rl.ac.uk
>>  
>> RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM RICHARD O'KEEFE ON PROLOG STANDARDIZATION

I have forwarded your response to Roger, (which is who it was from, for 
the unobservant) and will only answer the portion addressed directly to me.

>My postings were in fact a response to Chris Moss's mailing.  They were
>not confined to the content of that mailing, true.  It seemed to me that
>Chris Moss's mailing implied that the BSI syntax was in a satisfactory
>state, and that it wasn't as difference from the de facto standard as
>people feared.  I set out to show that neither of those statements is
>true, and I believe that I succeeded.
>

I think you certainly proved BSI syntax was not in a satisfactory state
tho I don't think I ever claimed it was. Who knows what people feared?

>Many comments did refer to a document that most news readers won't have
>seen. 

I've sent copies of the syntax to those readers who asked me for it 
and am quite prepared to do so for any others. Please send a snail-mail 
address, not e-mail.

>Consider the difference between
>
>	foo(X, P, Q, L) :- bag(X, (P & Q), L).
>				  ^^^^^^^
>and
>	de_morgan((P & Q), (R | S)) :- de_morgan(P, R), de_morgan(Q, S).
>		  ^^^^^^^
>The first is code, and the treatment of it in the grimoire is appropriate.
...
>I hereby wager US$100, payable once to Chris Moss, that if the next draft
>of the grimoire attempts to maintain this rigid distinction between code
>and data, I will be able to find inconsistencies like the ones above in
>it. 

Oh dear, I forsee difficulties. I regard both of those as DATA. The
present syntax does. If we're going to have to agree on where the
dividing line is, it won't be very fruitful for me. Or is there a
neutral judge?
Is that your point?

Chris.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.