Re: support for extended library

On 06/08/11 16:44, Jan Wielemaker wrote:
> On 06/08/2011 04:19 PM, Alois Schloegl wrote:
>> A colleague of mine wants to have SICStus Prolog. When I mentioned free
>> alternatives like gprolog and swi-prolog, his reasoning for using
>> SICStus Prolog over gprolog/swi-prolog is, that
>>
>> "Sicstus has a strong library support. For example: Library for list
>> operations:
>>
>> 1. Sicstus:
>> http://www.sics.se/sicstus/docs/latest4/html/sicstus.html/lib_002dlists.html
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. SWI:
>> http://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/doc_for?object=section%282,%27A.12%27,swi%28%27/doc/Manual/lists.html%27%29%29
>>
>>
>>
>> 3. GPrologcolleague
>> http://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/doc_for?object=section%282,%27A.12%27,swi%28%27/doc/Manual/lists.html%27%29%29
>>
>
> You probably wanted another web address here :-)

Of course, the correct link is this:
http://www.gprolog.org/manual/html_node/gprolog043.html

>
>> Therefore, I'm wondering whether there are resources out there that
>> address this issue.
>
> There is no standard for library(lists). As a result, some of the stuff
> is in different places. E.g., include/3 is in library(apply),
> transpose/2 is (not that I like it), in library(clpfd), etc. Richard
> O'Keefe proposed a new library structure [1]. This document surely
> acts as a guideline for developers when making a decision about changes,
> but it is not yet widely adopted.
>
> I assume that if there is sufficient demand, people will complain
> and submit additions to the list library.
>
> On a broader scope, I think both the SICStus and SWI-Prolog libraries
> cover a lot of ground. Both have comprehensive and well
> developed areas and weaker spots. Overall, my guess would be that the
> SICStus libraries are stronger manipulating Prolog terms and the SWI
> libraries are stronger in communication and reading/writing external
> file formats.
>
> Cheers --- Jan
>
> [1] http://www.cs.otago.ac.nz/staffpriv/ok/pllib.htm
>


Jan, thanks. I'll forward this information to my colleague.