Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sri-unix!O'KeefeHPS
From: O'KeefeHPS@sri-unix.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.prolog
Subject: Transport Syntax
Message-ID: <12134@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 9-Sep-84 08:09:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.12134
Posted: Sun Sep  9 08:09:38 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 07:37:27 EDT
Lines: 19

From:  O'Keefe HPS (on ERCC DEC-10)

I have now patched all the holes I could find in my previous
proposal on this topic, written it up, and given some examples.
By the time you read this, the paper should be available in the
Prolog library (as TRANSPORT.MSS).

If you care about moving code between different Prolog dialects,
please read this paper and send your comments to me or the
Digest or both.  The paper is just my opinion, and if you think
there's a gaping hole in it you may well be right.  To be of any
use, we have to agree about transport syntax, and now is the
time to do it.

Don't take the fact that the transport syntax looks vaguely like
LM-Prolog as an endorsement of anything but DEC-10 syntax for
human consumption.  The transport syntax I've come up with is
(I think) trivial to parse, makes all the necessary distinctions,
and has a hundred other virtues, but I don't **like** it.