Dan Rose

> Operationalizing language. Please suggest edits as necessary. I don't have the conceptual precision to do better than this.

Not sure what you mean by "Operationalizing language" or which language you're talking about. Please explain further if not addressed by latest commit.

> Do you see my point? With that sentence you haven't explain anything you just added to the total word count. I must have done a poor job. I *thought*...

> See also previous attempt at this: https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/pull/2407. @bakaq Thanks for the context! > Reject - as before. I think most people understand the more ubiquitous `->`/`;` construct so it...

The goal here is as a welcome mat to explain to interested user what the library is for and *why* to use it. As it is, the would-be user sees...

@dougransom I think the original author is Ulrich Neumerkel (UWN). He hasn't committed code to this repo, but he did contribute the same, undocumented library to SWI. https://www.swi-prolog.org/pack/file_details/reif/prolog/reif.pl

I saw the previous attempts and made a good-faith attempt to document. > Please see the previous attempts, which are now already repeatedly linked to in this discussion: https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/pull/2407 You...

@dougransom I think that sort of documentation is great. I don't know if such a PR would be accepted, especially how much of an uphill battle I've gotten with this...

> The documentation assumes exactly one Yes, this is documented, but I found it awkward in practice. It means that path parsing diverges substantially from how OS calls will interpret...

> My only point is that once you admit several separators, you are now questioning the relational nature Hoo boy... I don't quite understand what you mean by "questioning the...