🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <606@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
>In article <7505@well.UUCP> jax@well.UUCP (Jack J. Woehr) reports that
>>foo(1).  foo(2).  foo(3).  foobar(X,Y) :- foo(X), !, foo(Y).
>yields the answers (X,Y) = (3,3), (3,1), (3,2), (3,3), but that
>>goobar(X,Y) :- goo(X), !, goo(Y).  goo(1).  goo(2).  goo(3).
>yields the answers (X,Y) = (1,1), (1,2), (1,3) and asks
>>	Is UNH Prolog broken or am I?
>
>You should get the same answers from both.  However, the "foo" version
>looks suspiciously as though there is an additional clause foo(3) at
>the front.  Are you sure you tried this in an empty Prolog system?
>If starting a fresh copy of Prolog, entering those clauses, and verifying
>with the aid of listing/1 that those are the _only_ clauses for foo/1 and
>foobaz/2 produces the result claimed, there is indeed a mistake.

	Richard, that was indeed the problem, and you would think that after
all these years of crashing the system right down to the EEROM system configs
using FORTH  I would have spotted it. UNH was right and jax was wrong.

	So now i hear from one of the many kind correspondents who
responded to my plight that there exists such a thing as the DEC-10
Prolog Library. What form is this thing in? Is it a book, a 9-track,
an 8" hard-sectored floppy, a mound of Holleriths? 

{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
{}									  {}
{} jax@well	." Sysop, Realtime Control and Forth Board"		  {}
{} jax@chariot  ." (303) 278-0364 300/1200 8-n-1 24 hrs."                 {}
{} JAX on GEnie		." Tell them JAX sent you!"			  {}
{}									  {}
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}