🚀 go-pugleaf

Re: the discussion ok@cs.mu.oz.au (Richard O'Keefe) are having:

Of course in general Prolog should be what Prolog users want it to
be, so I have to agree with Richard's point that if

> customers are demanding floats, and what they want is floats that are the
> same as floats or doubles in C or Fortran or Pascal or Lisp.  

then probably Prolog should have floats.

On the other hand, I don't think that "customer demand" should be the
sole determinant of language design.  For example, even if "customer
demand" called for destructive assignment in Prolog I don't think
that that would convince me to support its inclusion in the language.

About soundness and completeness, Richard writes:

> I would *much* rather have soundness than completeness!

But as far as I can see, neither floating point nor interval arithmetic
can offer soundness when interpreted over the reals because of 
truncation error, as Richard himself pointed out, e.g.

> > It is indeed the case that
> >         1.0 + scalb(1.0, -60) =:= 1.0
> > must be true in IEEE 754 arithmetic and must be false in the reals...

So Richard's point about "loosing soundness" by allowing I1 =:= I2 to be true 
whenever I1 and I2 have a non-null intersection is a little misleading:
we never had it in the first place.

Mark