[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Date Index Thread Index Search archive:
Date:Mon Apr 6 10:08:54 2001 
Subject:Re: Prolog, NT and strings 
From:Michael Worsley 
Volume-ID:1010406.04 

<Roger.Evans@itri.brighton.ac.uk> wrote in message
9ajviq$2sn7$1@soapbox.cs.bham.ac.uk">news:9ajviq$2sn7$1@soapbox.cs.bham.ac.uk...
> Michael,
>
> I had a little nose around in the relevant prolog code a few months back
for a
> slightly different reason, but found it very difficult (even as someone
who is
> quite familiar with poplog itemisation support) to get the reader to do
what I
> wanted - prolog maintains its own item_chartype table that it plugs in
whenever
> it decides to itemise, so trying to dynamically modify tables from
'outside' is
> unlikely to work. In any case I worry that various other things (libraries
etc.)
> would stop working if you do this across the board.

Bother, I suspected that would be the case.

> My own strategy for coping with filename issues under windows is to set
> pop_filename_case to "undef" in the global init.p, and then use unix-style
> pathnames for everything (ie / instead of \, $foo instead of %foo%). This
gives
> me code compatibility between windows and Unix poplog, which is more
important
> to me than compatibility between windows poplog and other windows apps
(sicstus
> prolog etc.) that might want to share the code.

This isn't so much of a code-compatibility issue as it is a usability
issue -- one of our* products is prolog based.  Currently we use LPA-Prolog
on windows and Poplog on all other platforms, which, unfortunately, gives us
two code bases.  I'm looking at shifting to poplog on NT as well, and
telling our users to use "/" instead of "\" doesn't strike me as being quite
as user-fluffy as I'd like.

Thanks for the info, I'm going to have to have a ponder about this.


--
Michael Worsley
*: Praxis Critical Systems Ltd