Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!ukc!canon!wachtel
From: wachtel@canon.co.uk (Tom Wachtel)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Subject: Re: '->' operator
Message-ID: <1991Jan16.173545.29244@canon.co.uk>
Date: 16 Jan 91 17:35:45 GMT
References: <1471@n_kulcs.cs.kuleuven.ac.be> <1991Jan14.195251.9808@ida.liu.se>
Organization: Canon Research Europe, Guildford, UK
Lines: 19

felkl@aste16.Berkeley.EDU (Feliks Kluzniak) writes:

>In article <1471@n_kulcs.cs.kuleuven.ac.be>,
>bimbart@kulcs.cs.kuleuven.ac.be (Bart Demoen) writes:

>|> The standard committee has been critisized a lot for designing a new
>|> language instead of standardising an old one, and that's why certain 
>|> things can't be done, however much we can regret this.

>This is interesting. Does it mean that the committee has not, after all,
>designed a new language?  If it hasn't, the criticism was uncalled for;
>if it has, I can't see the logic.

But, I suppose, if it had, it would not have been, and if it hadn't
seemed like it might have done, it would also not have been, and since
it was, it didn't, and otherwise there would have been fewer auxiliary
verbs in this sentence.

Tom Wachtel (wachtel@canon.co.uk)