Paulo Moura

> @triska: for my use case I think `path_canonical/2` should work because all the files that are going to use already exist. I didn't look at it because I didn't...

> I suggest to use the existing functionality if it suffices for your use case. In case you need to create for example `"/Users/pmoura/some_new_file"`, simply specify that path (there is...

> In case environment variables are needed, I suggest `getenv/2` from `library(os)`, together with **`path_segments/2`** from `library(files)`. https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/discussions/1041#discussioncomment-1483975

Btw, the `path_canonical/2` conflates expanding a path with checking if the expanded path exists. This should be separated functionality as these are orthogonal. Adding `absolute_file_name/2-3` predicates fixes it as we...

I took a look at this Prolog codebase a couple of days ago. My usual approach is to use the Logtalk [linter](https://logtalk.org/tools.html#lint-checker) to check for potential porting issues. In this...

> Note: the outer call is just fluff here and comes from a Logtalk example. The original test is indeed a test for the `call/N` predicate.

> I can't speak for GNU Prolog but I believe SWI uses an atom-based module system, not a predicate-based one. GNU Prolog doesn't provide a module system. SWI-Prolog module system...

Additional `write_term/3` issues listed in https://github.com/tau-prolog/tau-prolog/issues/320

> (if I'm not confused) Python resolves names in LIFO while Ciao does in FIFO. Rather than errors, we show warnings if there are conflicts. Python is silent. SWI gives...

As you may have noticed in the documentation, Logtalk's `use_module/1` directive takes a list as argument. That provides a simply solution to distinguish it during compilation from the Prolog `use_module/1`...