Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 SMI; site emacs.uucp Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!cca!emacs!ray From: ray@emacs.uucp (Ray Reeves) Newsgroups: net.lang.prolog Subject: Re: Bugs, and more bugs... Message-ID: <118@emacs.uucp> Date: Wed, 3-Jul-85 09:07:25 EDT Article-I.D.: emacs.118 Posted: Wed Jul 3 09:07:25 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 5-Jul-85 06:25:07 EDT References: <2909@decwrl.UUCP> <116@emacs.uucp> <21@sri-iu.UUCP> Reply-To: ray@emacs.UUCP (Ray Reeves) Organization: CCA Uniworks, Wellesley, MA Lines: 17 Summary: I must gently rebuke Fernando for using pejorative terms like "religous" and "confuse" when I make a valid point. Micro-Prolog uses one data type - lists - for aggregates, instead of distinguishing lists from structures. It is not confused about that, and if it leads to better meta-programming it *is* a good excuse for doing so. Of course, when translating Dec-10 syntax to lisp syntax it cannot maintain that distinction, but that is only important if it is required to translate back again. It so happens that micro-Prolog does now support Dec-10 syntax so it can't be such a big deal. The points that lisp syntax is unsuitable for a reference language and that it makes compilation more difficult seem perfectly valid, although we might observe that the Symbolics Prolog compiler has made a pretty good job of it. -- Ray Reeves, CCA-UNIWORKS,20 William St,Wellesley, Ma. 02181. (617)235-2600 emacs!ray@CCA-UNIX