[m-rev.] for review: atoms in the debugger

[Ralph Becket]

Zoltan Somogyi, Wednesday,  2 January 2002:
> On 02-Jan-2002, Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> > On 31-Dec-2001, Zoltan Somogyi <zs at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> > > Give the debugger the ability to print atoms.
> > 
> > As a matter of terminology, I don't think we should use the term "atom";
> > instead we should use "closure" or perhaps "higher-order term",
> > for consistency with the Mercury language reference manual.
> 
> What??? This change has *nothing* to do with closures or higher order terms.
> 
> > The term "atom" is a misnomer (they're decomposable, not atomic),
> > and is confusing for people used to Prolog or Lisp terminology.
> 
> It is standard logic programming terminology. It is a misnomer only to the
> extent it is a misnomer in physics itself. Any *other* name would be confusing
> for people with logic programming backgrounds. Anyone with a Lisp background
> would be far more confused by the peculiar placement of the Lots of Insane
> Stupid Parentheses :-)

I've always found the Prolog habit of abbreviating "atomic formula" as
"atom" to be rather confusing, since atomic formulae can have structure
whereas the "standard" interpretation of an atom is as something
indivisible.

I'd use "functor" or "term" or even "atomic formula" rather than just
"atom".

- Ralph
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-reviews mailing list
post:  mercury-reviews at cs.mu.oz.au
administrative address: owner-mercury-reviews at cs.mu.oz.au
unsubscribe: Address: mercury-reviews-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: unsubscribe
subscribe:   Address: mercury-reviews-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: subscribe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------