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?