Re: [] \= '[]' (was Re: Ann: SWI-Prolog 7.1.0)

On 28/11/2013, at 2:47 AM, Paul Singleton wrote:
> 
> At the heart of the current debate is a disagreement on the sacredness of this term model.
> 
> For me, it is sacred (if anything, I want to simplify it, but that's another topic).

Paul Singleton has put this very clearly.

For me it is sacred to this extent:

 - I am happy to see additional kinds of constants added
   as long as they satisfy atomic/1.
   (Specifically, I have no problem with atomic rational numbers,
    atomic strings, and for that matter, atomic complex numbers,
    atomic quaternions, or atomic Erlang-like bit strings.
    I _asked_ for some of these things back in 1984.)

 - I am happy to see alternative term structures in a
   language that does not call itself Prolog, like LOGLISP or LIFE.

 - I am happy to see a single engine supporting a wide range of
   term structures with multiple "environments" such that a
   programming running in a Prolog "environment" can only see
   data compatible with the Prolog term structure.  Especially
   if the Prolog environment is actively maintained, not left to rot.
   (Xerox Quintus Prolog accomplished this, with a "Lisp environment"
   and a "Prolog environment".  Poplog tried to accomplish this, but
   the Lisp and Pop environments leaked too much into the Prolog
   environment, which was death to portability.)