erwise, due to the fact that in practice it is very hard to use some portion of a program in different places in a greater program, the real ASP programs are either very restricted in their application, or hard to read (and **thus to** evolve). In our opinion, DLV with templates (DLT) solves a serious part of this problem. However, on our formalism, it happens that it is DLVComplex, since it accepts sets and lists in a natural and efficient way, **which**
has made the difference. Indeed, our formalism involves sets in a non **trivial**
way, thus the present program is far more readable than the previous ones, in pure DLV.

From a formal perspective, neither DLV-Complex nor DLT are revolutionary. To a great extent, all they do is add way for writing natural programs where pure ASP systems need cumbersome rewritings of parts of the programs. Generally, using them does not improve computational efficiency.

The fact is that they always allow more convenient writing, and particularly much easier reading, which changes the life of the programmer. Expert ASP programmers were able to use previous ASP systems together with **small** parts of more standard programming, but this was not very attracting for most of the potential users of ASP systems.

So, what can we expect now? For now, DLT cannot work together with DLV-Complex, and this is the first thing we can expect, hopefully in a very near future, together with similar facilities for gringo/clasp and other systems.

Also, "brave" and "cautious" reasoning do not exist in full generality (to our knowledge) in available systems. May be our formalism is an extreme example of this point (a mix of cautious and standard reasoning would be useful), but in fact this happens to be a serious concern in many circumstances. Again, programmers can redirect the result (the set of **all answer**
sets) to a very simple other ASP program, for playing with the answer sets in a more or less complex way, but this is not very convenient. In the literature, we can encounter various texts about this problem, describing systems which solve it in a natural manner, but, to our knowledge, such systems are not yet available. Some [meta?]predicates, as described in e.g. [13], which present a relatively simple and natural way to write programs doing this, would suffice in many cases. In this way real brave and cautious reasoning could be envisioned, and much more. We hope that this will be the case in available systems in a near future. Clearly, dealing with too many answer sets cannot be done with huge domains, but there are many cases where it would be interesting to have full access to the set of all the answer **sets.**