🚀 go-pugleaf

> >Consider the following trivial predicate:
> >a([]).
> >a(_).
> >
> >Given the query :-a([]). , C-Prolog finds one match and UNSW Prolog finds two.
> >Which is standard behavior?  How do other implementations behave?
_____________
> I do not have the authority to say which is "standard" behavior, if by that
> you mean which is found more commonly in implementations.  However, any book
> on "vanilla" Prolog will tell you that "_" matches to anything, including a
> null list, so I would indeed be annoyed by C-Prolog if it did not find two
> matches.  Anybody disagree?
-------------
Hmmm.  The reason for logic programming's existence is to dispense with
guesses about what behaviour should be.  The formulae assert that the
individual constant named `[]' and everthing else (i.e., `_') is in the 
class named by the predicate `a'.  If you believe that the anonymous variable
is a universially quantified variable, then there are two resolution proofs
of the query a([]).

Implementors' treatment of `_' can produce non-standard behaviour; non-standard
means not consistent with the logical interpretation.