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

[Zoltan Somogyi]

On 02-Jan-2002, Ralph Becket <rafe at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> 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.

Only before the thirties.

In both physics and here, an atom is best treated as indivisible in some
contexts (e.g. when discussing derivations) and as divisible in other contexts
(e.g. when browsing).

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

"Functor" and "term" both have their own meanings which are different
from what we mean here.

"Atomic formula" is just too long, and in any case I don't see any difference
between it and "atom" wrt implications of indivisibility.

I see this debate as pointless, because it is more important for terminology
to be standard than for it to be intrinsically "good" in some sense. For
better or worse, the concept we need is named "atom" in the logic programming
literature.

Zoltan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------