🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5021@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au>, ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard
A. O'Keefe) writes:

|> In article <1991Mar20.225013.21372@comp.vuw.ac.nz>,
|> Bill.Viggers@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Bill Viggers) writes:
|> > 	For starters its easiest if you give Prolog functions, names that
|> > 	describe what they do.  Personally I also dislike
|> > 	have two functions with the same name and different arity.
|> 
|> Prolog has no functions, only predicates.
|> I very much *like* using the same symbol at different arities,
|> as it reduces the need for inventing names whose only raison d'etre
|> is to be different.


	You have me on the predicates, but I find having predicates with the same
	name and different arity hard to locate when I'm looking though the 
	program, so I like to give them different names, I guess thats a
	matter of personal preference.

|> 
|> This *HAS* to be a joke.  Why end a list with 'end'?  Why not end it
|> with [], which is what lists usually end with?
|> 

	I finished the list with 'end' as thats how the origional poster ended 
	his list. I assume there is a reason why he wanted it this way.

	On everything else, I stand corrected.

B.