Subject: Re: [lojban] lojban application in wearable computing

From: Jay Kominek <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 19:44:04 -0700 (MST)

On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Ted Reed wrote:

> > > Perhaps not lisp, but scheme tends to be organized around predicate
> > > syntax and brackets to define things that are more than one word.
> >
> > not necessarily, but again if your list head symbols are defined as
> > predicates (or functions returning a boolean value) it would be like you
> > say.
>
> My question is, why do we even have to base it on a preexisting proglang?It
> seems to me that lojban already has its own syntax and trying to force it
> into the confines of a preexisting language would limit the effectivenessof
> using lojban in the first place.

Not to be rude, but it isn't 'we'. It is whoever actually produces the
code.

The idea with Prolog, presumably, would be to translate the Lojban
losslessly into Prolog rules which can be queried. Assuming it is
lossless, your complaint is relatively groundless. (Computer science
has plenty of practice translating machine languages flawlessly, btw.)

Sounds like xod is going to produce some code, and he asked for
suggestions. Were you planning on helping him? :)

(By the way, I doubt that writing a quality, fast inference engine is
easy. Hence, it would be very timesaving to use an existing one.)

- Jay Kominek <[email-masked]>
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose