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