paco@.sunysb.edu (Paco Romero) (09/18/89)
This is a call for an unmoderated newsgroup by the name of
comp.lang.prolog.sb. Following is the pertinent information:
Proposed newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog.sb (unmoderated)
The proposed newsgroup is expected to contain discussions and
articles relevant to the Stony Brook implementation of Prolog.
The discussion should address topics including (but not limited
to) user questions, bug reports, enhancements, ports and any
other subject related to the SB-Prolog system.
Please address you comments to news.groups.
This is a call for discussion. If everything works out fine,
a call to votes will be made on Oct 5, 1989.
Paco Romero(graduate student) paco@sbcs.sunysb.edu
Dept. of Computer Science,
SUNY at Stony Brook, NY 11794
(516)632-7678 ok@cs.mu.oz.au (Richard O'Keefe) (09/18/89)
In article <3519@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, paco@.sunysb.edu (Paco Romero) writes: > Proposed newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog.sb (unmoderated) If this were a vote, I'd vote *NO*. There isn't enough traffic on comp.lang.prolog to warrant splitting it. > The proposed newsgroup is expected to contain discussions and > articles relevant to the Stony Brook implementation of Prolog. > The discussion should address topics including (but not limited > to) user questions, bug reports, enhancements, ports and any > other subject related to the SB-Prolog system. User questions are likely to be interest to Prolog hackers generally. First-level bug reports should be E-mailed to SB-Prolog's maintainer(s); when there are patches they can be posted in comp.sources.misc and a two-line notice posted in comp.lang.prolog; I really don't see why SB Prolog has to be any different from PERL in this respect. Announcements of ports of SB-Prolog are likely to be of interest to anyone using Prolog, especially to people who didn't know that there _was_ such a thing as SB-Prolog. There are some things in SB-Prolog which aren't in other Prologs, such as the extension table stuff, but they _OUGHT_ to be discussed in comp.lang.prolog so that the rest of us can decide whether it is useful enough to pester our vendors to add these features to their Prologs. There's no question that SB Prolog is a useful and interesting system; my point is that most of the things people might want to say about it are interesting to everyone in comp.lang.prolog, and as for other stuff, I only wish comp.lang.prolog WAS groaning with traffic, but it ISN'T. (Heck, there isn't a comp.lang.fortran.microsoft or a comp.lang.c.zortech.)