Re: Standard behavior?

Article View: net.lang.prolog

Article #622

#622

From: Marco Valtorta
Date: Wed, 28 May 1986 16:01

10 lines
925 bytes

I find UNSW's behavior to be intuitively more correct, since
it seems that the empty list "[]" should match the anonymous
variable "_".  This wouldn't be the first time that I find
UNSW to act in a way that is closer to my "mental model" of
Prolog.  
Maybe someone involved in a standardization effort could contribute
something on this topic?

[What contained above is my personal opinion.]:w
-

Technical Details

Message-ID: <306@euroies.UUCP>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!caip!seismo!mcvax!euroies!mgv

References: <6500005@uicsl> <1135@erix.UUCP>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!caip!seismo!mcvax!euroies!mgv
From: mgv@euroies.UUCP ( Marco Valtorta)
Newsgroups: net.lang.prolog
Subject: Re: Standard behavior?
Message-ID: <306@euroies.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 28-May-86 12:01:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: euroies.306
Posted: Wed May 28 12:01:39 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 25-May-86 13:55:02 EDT
References: <6500005@uicsl> <1135@erix.UUCP>
Organization: University College Dublin
Lines: 11

Reply to Parent Message