🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1385@quintus.UUCP> dave@quintus.UUCP (David Bowen) writes:
>In article <3314@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> Richard A. O'Keefe writes:
>...
>>I agree _vehemently_ that bignum and rational arithmetic ought to be
>>in the Prolog standard. 

>(Vehemence is not helpful in the construction of a standard.)

Well, that could just as well be said to a number of people other
than Richard.  I don't think it's been a lack of vehemence that's
delayed the Prolog standard.

>I think it is important to have a Prolog standard sooner rather than later.
>This is not going to happen if people keep widening the scope of what must
>be in the standard.  The only way to achieve a standard soon is to restrict
>it to very little more than was in DEC10 Prolog, which is very close to being
>a subset of most of the Prolog implementations available today.

I agree, on this and the rest of the article.  

However, given the amount of time that has already been spent on the
Prolog standard, I think it could be argued that, had the time been
used more effectively, certain extentsions would not have delayed it
overmuch.

Unfortunately, some people have not wanted to standardize "Edinburgh
Prolog" and have even spent a fair amount to time arguing that there
isn't any such thing, sufficiently well-defined.  Some have even tried
to discredit Richard by pointing out that (at the time) he worked for
Quintus.  And, of course, some people cannot rest until their notion
of modules (or whatever) is put into the standard.

-- J