Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!yeshua.marcam.com!zip.eecs.umich.edu!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!gatech!swrinde!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!munnari.oz.au!cs.mu.OZ.AU!munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU!fjh
From: fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson)
Subject: Re: Prolog standardization -- What now?
Message-ID: <9430713.11120@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Sender: news@cs.mu.OZ.AU
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
References: <3961lo$kdu@lightning.ditc.npl.co.uk> <9430711.8652@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 02:02:51 GMT
Lines: 16

lee@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Lee Naish) writes:

>Its worth doing grammar rules.  I can't see why it should take very
>long.

I think the problem was that no-one could agree on what should happen
with grammar rules containing non-logical constructs.

>I would forget about standardizing constraints at this stage.

Yes, I think it's premature.  But standardizing corouting (as an *optional*
extension) is worth at least considering.  The systems that have it all
seem to use incompatible syntax.

-- 
Fergus Henderson - fjh@munta.cs.mu.oz.au
