Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site water.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!water!rggoebel From: rggoebel@water.UUCP (Randy Goebel LPAIG) Newsgroups: net.lang.prolog Subject: Re: Prolog: first order?? Message-ID: <697@water.UUCP> Date: Fri, 12-Jul-85 10:09:28 EDT Article-I.D.: water.697 Posted: Fri Jul 12 10:09:28 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 09:23:45 EDT References: <174@bcsaic.UUCP> Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 24 > > remaining strictly first order logic that to put Prolog into concrete at this > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > time would be not be productive. > > Can someone clear something up for me? I would have thought that Prolog > was *not* "strictly first order logic," because of the existence of > predicates like "call" and "=.."... The semantics of pure Prolog is well understood from a first order viewpoint (e.g., see John Lloyd's book ``The Foundations of Logic Programming'', Springer-Verlag, 1984). The semantics of meta-language operations is neither standardized nor well-formalized. Relevant here is Bowen and Kowalski's paper ``Amalgamating language and metalanguage in logic programming'' in the book ``Logic Programming'' edited by Clark and Tarnlund, Academic Press, 1982. Randy Goebel Logic Programming and Artificial Intelligence Group Computer Science Department University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA N2L 3G1 UUCP: {decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!watmath!water!rggoebel CSNET: rggoebel%water@waterloo.csnet ARPA: rggoebel%water%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa