Re: Remarks on SWI 7

On 29/11/2013, at 8:03 AM, Ulrich Neumerkel wrote:
> There was a lot of detail that needed to be resolved first.  Which
> programming language was in such a bad shape (in terms of
> implementations as of 1987) that even its very fundamental concept of
> unification was not defined?

You're right about that, BUT that's no reason to leave out the other
stuff as well
> 
>>   There was and remains no ISO support for pretty much any
>>   kind of OS interface: no directories, no way to ask for the
>>   current time or the last change date of a file, to run an
>>   external program, &c.  While I was at RMIT I started a
>>   "POSIX binding for Prolog" project, but was given to understand
>>   that the ISO committee would have zero interest in looking at it,
>>   so abandoned it.
> 
> Write a document, keep an eye that implementors actually implement
> this

Come on.  I was talking about a period when the ISO committee were
busy innovating without implementations backing them.  The ISO
modules proposal was different in many points from previous module
systems, and was ratified *before* wide spread adoption.