Dan Rose

> Reject Please recommend alternate documentation for this language feature. I may not have done it justice but it's important enough to document.

@triska, @UWN, could you please re-review. I put this in builtins by analogy with #2265. But maybe it belongs in `loader.pl` since `(:)/2` is not in ISO General Core. For...

> Could you try and be a little more constructive and less passive aggressive? To any one watching this repository it just looks extremely hostile to contribute. Thank you for...

@hurufu Then maybe `:/2` should not be exposed at all or should be documented as “do not use”. I agree that trivial documentation is bad. Documenting a symbol in searchable...

> Also users should not be encouraged in any way to use `(:)/2`. Ideally they shouldn't need to be aware that it exists. If you happen to (rarely) need explicitly...

Modifying the original module to rename the predicates apart or introducing new intermediate modules does not replace the use of `:`. > It depends on why do you need it...

> Have you tried your code? Does it work? Oops! No, something weird is going on. It *should* work but for some reason, the explicit `[]` import list is interfering...

On closer inspection, it seems the predicate properties resolve differently depending on how `true` is qualified: ``` ?- predicate_property(user:true,X). X = built_in ; X = dynamic ; false. ?- predicate_property(builtins:true,X)....

> Expected: `permission_error(modify, procedure, true/0)` Might be better to have it be: `permission_error(modify, builtin_procedure, true/0)` Or maybe even this, if we want to consider this just a special case of...

> It should be `permission_error(modify, static_procedure, true/0)` similar to `asserta/1` 8.9.1.4, 7.12.2 e, PermissionType. I disagree. In every case, `permission_error(_, static_procedure, _)` is about trying to inspect or alter the...