From ok@atlas.otago.ac.nz  Fri Sep 22 04:30:04 2000
Received: from atlas.otago.ac.nz (atlas.otago.ac.nz [139.80.32.250])
	by swi.psy.uva.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA23523
	for <prolog@swi.psy.uva.nl>; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 04:30:02 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: (from ok@localhost)
	by atlas.otago.ac.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA02746;
	Fri, 22 Sep 2000 14:30:13 +1200 (NZST)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 14:30:13 +1200 (NZST)
From: "Richard A. O'Keefe" <ok@atlas.otago.ac.nz>
Message-Id: <200009220230.OAA02746@atlas.otago.ac.nz>
To: p.singleton@keele.ac.uk, prolog@swi.psy.uva.nl
Subject: Re: Circular references
Cc: ok@atlas.otago.ac.nz

	> Find another way to represent your information (there is *always*
	> a better method than cyclic terms).
	
	I'm intrigued by your assertion: 
	
	 * what do you mean by "better"?
	
Easier-to-reason-about-programs-for-its-manipulation

	 * can you prove it?
	
In 20 years of Prolog, I've come across one counter-example that I'm
confident of, and one that I'm dubious of.  It's a pragmatic claim,
not a theoretical one.
	

