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.