Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uknet!festival!hwcee!andrew
From: andrew@cee.hw.ac.uk (Andrew Dinn)
Subject: Re: What exactly is LIPS?
Message-ID: <Cwzqy8.G3n@cee.hw.ac.uk>
Sender: news@cee.hw.ac.uk (News Administrator)
Organization: Dept of Computing and Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <Y222338.940928.A@ozemail.com.au> <36e057$23f@irisa.irisa.fr> <36fp20$cne@hobbes.cc.uga.edu> <ludemannCwyC5y.5Av@netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 1994 11:08:31 GMT
Lines: 24

Peter Ludemann (ludemann@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <36fp20$cne@hobbes.cc.uga.edu>,
: Michael Covington <mcovingt@ai.uga.edu> wrote:

: >Note that naive reverse uses unification in a trivial way and performs no
: >backtracking; thus, the two most important features of the language are
: >left unused.  

: While I'm no fan of "nrev LIPS", I'm not sure I agree with Michael's
: statement.  I think that most of my code uses unification in a
: "trivial way" (see example below) and most of it doesn't backtrack.

[argument about representative code deleted (refer to preceding note)]

Before we spawn a thread from hell... please note that this is all
rather old hat. Benchmarks such as naive reverse are *both* useless
*and* better than any other general measure of performance.

They only exist to impress suits.


Andrew Dinn
-----------
there is no map / and a compass / wouldn't help at all
