🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <3850@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au>, by ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe):
> In article <2574@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil>, ntm1169@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil (Mott Given) writes:
> May I respectfully suggest that a better way to translate from Prolog
> to IBM PROLOG is to write a Prolog program?  
 
     I agree with you 100% that a PROLOG translation program would be better
than a FILEAID one.  I started with the FILEAID one as something that would
be much easier to implement.

> The thing that puzzles me most is that Chapter 13 of the IBM PROLOG
> manual states clearly and explicitly in the very first paragraph that
> 	IBM PROLOG can process programs written with the Edinburgh
> 	syntax and using predicates that are normally part of an [sic]
> 	Prolog implementation for the Edinburgh syntax.
      
     IBM MVS PROLOG requires you to implement Edinburgh syntax by individually
modifying each aspect of your environment through many "pragma" statements.
For example, "pragma(lcomment,1)" allows you to use comments that have more
than 1 line (this is shown as an illustration of the granularity of the
statements you must specify).  The software does not come with any 
predefined modules or commands that allow you to switch to Edinburgh syntax
in a simple way.  

> I note that
>>                REPL=(1,0,C":-",C"<-"),                          
> <- and :- are both accepted in *both* syntaxes, and that
> IBM PROLOG supports abolish/2, assert/1, asserta/1, ...

    IBM MVS PROLOG does NOT have abolish/2, assert/1, and asserta/1
defined as built-in predicates in MVS/PROLOG Release 1 Level 0.  There are
significant differences between the MVS and VM versions of PROLOG.