Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!its63b!aiva!jeff
From: jeff@aiva.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Subject: Re: Atom-based module systems
Message-ID: <425@aiva.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 11 May 88 17:13:03 GMT
References: <136@vor.esosun.UUCP> <841@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> <365@aiva.ed.ac.uk> <395@aiva.ed.ac.uk> <943@cresswell.quintus.UUCP>
Reply-To: jeff@uk.ac.ed.aiva (Jeff Dalton)
Organization: Dept. of AI, Univ. of Edinburgh, UK
Lines: 23

In article <943@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
>In article <395@aiva.ed.ac.uk>, jeff@aiva.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>> By the way, Richard, are you still opposed to the so-called atom-based
>> module schemes?  I suppose it should be a separate topic...

The reason I asked is that your recent remarks on the impossibility of
sharply distinguishing code from data would tend to support "atom-
based" designs.

It also seems strange that (with non-text schemes) in

     p(a).

p/1 is subject to modules, but in

     q(p(a)).

it is not -- even though q/1 may use call/1 or otherwise be dealing with
the same p/1 as in the first example.  (Is portray an example?)

I'll respond more fully to your reasons against in a separate message.

-- Jeff