goebel@alberta.UUCP (Randy Goebel) (10/02/87)
In article <5265@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, lagache@violet.berkeley.edu (Edouard Lagache) writes: > While I believe the dot > notation for cons cells is part of the original language specification, > it isn't mentioned in Clocksin and Mellish... The only specification for Prolog is that it is SLD resolution, implemented with a depth-first, left to right search strategy. > > As to the complaints on '!,fail' clauses. I too am fully aware that > they are redundant. However, what a computer can easily deduce from > the code, may be difficult for humans to discern, particularly for > those new to PROLOG. While A.I. researchers seem determined to make > their code as cryptic as possible, the rest of the programming world is > still in the midst of a "readability revolution". Given the terseness > of some of the code touted as "improvements" over my work, it may be > time for some people on this net to go back and take a course in > structured Pascal! Horse manure. This comment betrays the same attitude of millions of arcane programmers who refuse to pull their heads from the sand. To consider adding "cut fail" atoms for readability completely misses the whole point of logic programming. Randy Goebel University of Alberta