Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site bcsaic.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!michaelm
From: michaelm@bcsaic.UUCP (michael b maxwell)
Newsgroups: net.lang.prolog
Subject: Prolog: first order??
Message-ID: <174@bcsaic.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 2-Jul-85 15:21:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: bcsaic.174
Posted: Tue Jul  2 15:21:47 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 09:17:46 EDT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center
Lines: 15
Keywords: Prolog logic

> >From: vantreeck@logic.DEC
> Date: 26 Jun 85 16:01:50 GMT
> They also think that current implementations of Prolog are severely
> lacking in features that help produce reliable and maintainable programs. But
> some experts think that there is so much good work being done on the
> theoretical issues of how to extend the language to make it more useful while
> 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 "=..".  Clocksin and Mellish seem to say
something like this (2nd. ed., pg 255; 1st. ed., pg. 226).  Would
someone care to comment on this?