🚀 go-pugleaf

> Now, a general philosophical point.  Prolog is certainly _not_ logic 
> programming, although it is a large step in that direction.  A true 
> logic programming language would not have nor need "cut" ("!"), 
> "var", "nonvar", etc.  ("=..", "name", "is" and even "call" are 
> legitimate because they can be considered as an infinite number of 
> rules.  "var" and "nonvar" can't be described that way).  One of the 
> advantages of logic programming is that it allows us to consider 
> computations without knowing (precisely) the underlying execution 
> strategy.  Indeed, for "pure" programs, the execution strategy could 
> change, yet the programs would still execute correctly.  Let us 
> strive to produce true logic programming languages which get over the 
> minor failings of Prolog.  

Many claim that "logic programming" is an oxymoron. The logic of pure Prolog
is well defined...that's all I said.  I don't believe that cut, var, and
nonvar cannot be described logically, just because they aren't in Prolog
implementations.