Article View: comp.lang.prolog
Article #3051Re: BSI standards
From: Stanley T. Shebs
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 1988 15:23
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 1988 15:23
16 lines
1297 bytes
1297 bytes
In article <8803082357.AA01587@decwrl.dec.com> vantreeck@curie.dec.com writes: >I also see proposals for new data types, e.g., character, string, and list. I >wish someone could explain why these are really needed as part of standard. >PROLOG is supposed to be a high level language. It's advantage over lower >level languages is that it allows one to program at a more abstract level. String and list types have good and bad points, but the lack of character types in older Prologs is a great embarassment. Numbers like 26 and 65 are sadly common, as is doing arithmetic on these to implement character operations. I think it's safe to say that any language requiring the use of numbers to represent some other type of object is not "high level", at least with respect to that type. stan shebs shebs@cs.utah.edu
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<5334@utah-cs.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!ut-sally!utah-cs!defun.utah.edu!shebsReferences:
<8803082357.AA01587@decwrl.dec.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!ut-sally!utah-cs!defun.utah.edu!shebs From: shebs%defun.utah.edu.uucp@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley T. Shebs) Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog Subject: Re: BSI standards Message-ID: <5334@utah-cs.UUCP> Date: 9 Mar 88 15:23:29 GMT References: <8803082357.AA01587@decwrl.dec.com> Sender: news@utah-cs.UUCP Reply-To: shebs%defun.utah.edu.UUCP@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley T. Shebs) Organization: PASS Research Group Lines: 16