lagache@violet.berkeley.edu (Edouard Lagache) (09/29/87)
Well I am certainly glad that at least someone went to the trouble of actually reading my PROLOG library code (on second thought, maybe it would have been better otherwise ....) To be quite honest, I thought that nit-pickers were only to be found in model railroading and other "precision" hobbies, but I guess the PROLOG net has its own set, and regrettably, I didn't put a "no nit-picking" sign on my documentation. So on to the nit-picks: First, the highly optimal code of Lee Naish i.e. merge([],[],[]). merge(Head1.Tail1, Head2.Tail2, Head1.Head2.R) :- merge(Tail1,Tail2,R). does not run on the A.D.A. VML PROLOG interpreter. It complains about finding "unexpected period on line 2". While I believe the dot notation for cons cells is part of the original language specification, it isn't mentioned in Clocksin and Mellish, and thus, is missing from at least one PROLOG implementation. 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! Finally, there were a number of important comments that I will keep and attempt to implement after I complete my Master's Thesis this fall. I am not a PROLOG guru, and never claimed that I was. Nor was I aware of what other sorts of public domain PROLOG libraries already existed. My entire objective was to produce a clean, well documented package of basic predicates in order to save other programmers from having to re- invent the wheel. With the help of everyone on the net, these libraries can be made optimal, and the documentation can be made both more readable and accurate. However, unless people take a more constructive and less antagonistic attitude toward contributions, not only will these libraries die of neglect, but people will simply not contribute valuable materials to avoid the grief that I have had the pleasure of enduring! Edouard Lagache School of Education U.C. Berkeley lagache@violet.berkeley.edu