🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <274@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk>, cdsm@ivax.doc.ic.ac.uk (Chris Moss) writes:
> I dispute that strongly. On a number of occasions I've answered point
> by point. Where I haven't, the usual reason is that it concerns part
> of the standard that I have not personally been concerned with.

In case it still isn't clear:  Chris Moss's position on the BSI Prolog
committee is similar to Doug Gwyn's position on the ANSI C committee.
He is not responsible for the whole of BSI Prolog, nor indeed for any
large part of it.  I have severely criticised the syntax documents
which bear his name, but my understanding is that his part in them is
largely a matter of writing down and trying to make consistent decisions
of the syntax subcommittee as a whole.  I claim that the deformities of
the syntax follow from the approach which was settled on before the BSI
committee was adopted by the BSI and are inherent in that approach, not
in Chris Moss's abilities or preferences.  For the built-in predicates
(such as atom/1) and the Formal Specification, no blame whatsoever
attaches to Chris Moss.  He has the misfortune (and the courage) to be
the only member of the committee "visible" in this newsgroup.

I wish some of the other commitee members would contribute their views.
In particular, I wish the present Edinburgh members would make their
opinions known, and I have _longed_ for Bill Clocksin to comment.