- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Paco Lopez Fraguas <fraguas_at_eucmax.sim.ucm.es>

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 16:24:19 +0100

Dear "curritos" (workers, in spanish slang):

Most of the people in the Declarative Programming Group in Madrid

(Univ. Complutense) consider the Curry iniciative as a very interesting

and promising one, and would like our group to participate

in it. After a meeting, we decided to create a small local

Curry committee (Ana Gil, Teresa Hortala, Mario Rodriguez,

Eva Ullan and myself) and to use, as much as possible,

a unique voice (mine!) for translating our opininionsto the Curry

discussion.

First of all, we apologize if we incorporate a bit late to the

discussion.

Our first block of technical considerations is the following:

1. With respect to the question of including 'let' and 'where'

constructions in a Haskell style, which has been discussed in some

messages, we are definitely in favour of that inclusion. Although

'let' and 'where' can be lifted (and this of course can be

taken into account when discussing many aspects of the language)

they prove to be very useful in practice.

2. With respect to the question of allowing extra variables in

right-hand sides, our opinion is quite radical: we strongly

advocate to adopt non-deterministic functions as the fundamental

notion underlying the language, instead of the 'classical'

of deterministic function. The problem of variables in rhs

vanishes, since they can be used freely. Some arguments

supporting this (admitedly controversial) point of view follow:

- As it has already been implicitely pointed out by Michael

* > (but the compiler accepts also the more general cases
*

* > which cause no implementation problems in a functional
*

* > logic language)
*

non-deterministic functions are implemented for free in most

functional logic systems, even if they are not meant for this.

- Computing with deterministic functions presents some adventages

(e.g., dynamic cut), but these benefits are NOT lost when you

have a system supporting non-deterministic functions. The following

statement tries to make it clear: whichever decidable conditions you

establish ensuring that your program is legal, that is,

it really defines 'classical' (i.e. deterministic) functions,

these conditions can be re-used, in a non-deterministic setting,

for detecting that some (probably most) of the functions in

a program are deterministic, hence allowing the use of

optimizations for such cases.

- To provide mathematical (model theoretic, proof theoretic,

fixpoint) semantics to programs and computations with

nondeterministic functions is possible.

We have some works along this line (see, f.i.,

"A Rewriting Logic for Declarative Programming" (ESOP'96)

which can be found in http://mozart.mat.ucm.es )

- Non-deterministic functions are interesting by themselves

as a programming language construct. This is specially true

when functions are lazy (the case of Curry). For instance,

you can lazily non-deterministically generate objects (even

infinite) which are then checked for a desired property.

That is, you can write "efficient" generate-and-test programs,

in contrast with the case of similar logic programs (which

are typically inneficient) or the case of similar functional programs

(which are efficient, but at the cost of constructing some kind

of "list-of-all-objects").

As an example, consider the following program for "permutation

sort" (Sergio has a similar example in one of his papers):

% // is the nondeterministic function by excellence

x // y := x

x // y := y

% Nondeterministic insertion in a list

insert x [] := [x]

insert x [y|ys] := [x,y|ys]

//

[y|insert x ys]

% Non-deterministic generation of permutations

permut [] := []

permut [x|xs] := insert x (permut xs)

% In the following definition, 'ys' (i.e. 'permut xs')

% is lazily generated, as much as the filter 'sorted' demands it.

% The filter may reject 'ys' without fully constructing it.

sort xs := ys if sorted ys

where ys := permut xs

sorted [] := true

sorted [x] := true

sorted [x,y|ys] = sorted [y|ys] if x <= y

3. The question of equality (p. 4-5 in the Curry report) should

be clarified. Some comments and suggestions about that:

* We accept the convenience of considering two kinds of equality,

otherwise disequality constraints should be used and this

complicates the language in the overall.

* In a first moment, in p.4, some rules are given for strict equality,

which are meant to correspond to the equality used in functional

languages. This is not true: equality in FL is two-valued (may return

'true' or 'false'), and this is not the case for the mentioned set

of rules. The set of rules appropriate for equality in FL is

in fact the rules given for == in p.5.

* Contrary to the case of ==, the equality =, as described in p. 5,

can only return the value 'true'. Therefore, it is not correct to speak

about

"two kinds of equalities which have identical meaning on

ground expressions". In fact, = could be 'defined' by means of

the set of rules in p.4 (although the implementation would

not follow the 'normal' mechanism of evaluation, because the generation

of infinite ground solutions is replaced by unification).

* A question: do you think that the report should fix the evaluation

strategy for = and ==? We think not. For instance, one implementation

could, for simplicity, evaluate e=e' by reducing e and e' to normal

form before performing unification (this is the mechanism suggested

in p. 5). But other implementations could try more sophisticated

ways for performing unification incrementally. This done so,

e.g, in our implementations (TOY, BabLog).

That's all for the moment for the technical stuff. In the organizative

level of the Curry iniciative, we think that it would be convenient:

1. To identify the different institutions o groups which want

to be involved in the Curry initiative.

2. To have a representant of each group.

3. To start thinking about possible mechanisms for taking decisions.

What is your opinion about that?

Best regards,

Paco Lopez,

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 16:24:19 +0100

Dear "curritos" (workers, in spanish slang):

Most of the people in the Declarative Programming Group in Madrid

(Univ. Complutense) consider the Curry iniciative as a very interesting

and promising one, and would like our group to participate

in it. After a meeting, we decided to create a small local

Curry committee (Ana Gil, Teresa Hortala, Mario Rodriguez,

Eva Ullan and myself) and to use, as much as possible,

a unique voice (mine!) for translating our opininionsto the Curry

discussion.

First of all, we apologize if we incorporate a bit late to the

discussion.

Our first block of technical considerations is the following:

1. With respect to the question of including 'let' and 'where'

constructions in a Haskell style, which has been discussed in some

messages, we are definitely in favour of that inclusion. Although

'let' and 'where' can be lifted (and this of course can be

taken into account when discussing many aspects of the language)

they prove to be very useful in practice.

2. With respect to the question of allowing extra variables in

right-hand sides, our opinion is quite radical: we strongly

advocate to adopt non-deterministic functions as the fundamental

notion underlying the language, instead of the 'classical'

of deterministic function. The problem of variables in rhs

vanishes, since they can be used freely. Some arguments

supporting this (admitedly controversial) point of view follow:

- As it has already been implicitely pointed out by Michael

non-deterministic functions are implemented for free in most

functional logic systems, even if they are not meant for this.

- Computing with deterministic functions presents some adventages

(e.g., dynamic cut), but these benefits are NOT lost when you

have a system supporting non-deterministic functions. The following

statement tries to make it clear: whichever decidable conditions you

establish ensuring that your program is legal, that is,

it really defines 'classical' (i.e. deterministic) functions,

these conditions can be re-used, in a non-deterministic setting,

for detecting that some (probably most) of the functions in

a program are deterministic, hence allowing the use of

optimizations for such cases.

- To provide mathematical (model theoretic, proof theoretic,

fixpoint) semantics to programs and computations with

nondeterministic functions is possible.

We have some works along this line (see, f.i.,

"A Rewriting Logic for Declarative Programming" (ESOP'96)

which can be found in http://mozart.mat.ucm.es )

- Non-deterministic functions are interesting by themselves

as a programming language construct. This is specially true

when functions are lazy (the case of Curry). For instance,

you can lazily non-deterministically generate objects (even

infinite) which are then checked for a desired property.

That is, you can write "efficient" generate-and-test programs,

in contrast with the case of similar logic programs (which

are typically inneficient) or the case of similar functional programs

(which are efficient, but at the cost of constructing some kind

of "list-of-all-objects").

As an example, consider the following program for "permutation

sort" (Sergio has a similar example in one of his papers):

% // is the nondeterministic function by excellence

x // y := x

x // y := y

% Nondeterministic insertion in a list

insert x [] := [x]

insert x [y|ys] := [x,y|ys]

//

[y|insert x ys]

% Non-deterministic generation of permutations

permut [] := []

permut [x|xs] := insert x (permut xs)

% In the following definition, 'ys' (i.e. 'permut xs')

% is lazily generated, as much as the filter 'sorted' demands it.

% The filter may reject 'ys' without fully constructing it.

sort xs := ys if sorted ys

where ys := permut xs

sorted [] := true

sorted [x] := true

sorted [x,y|ys] = sorted [y|ys] if x <= y

3. The question of equality (p. 4-5 in the Curry report) should

be clarified. Some comments and suggestions about that:

* We accept the convenience of considering two kinds of equality,

otherwise disequality constraints should be used and this

complicates the language in the overall.

* In a first moment, in p.4, some rules are given for strict equality,

which are meant to correspond to the equality used in functional

languages. This is not true: equality in FL is two-valued (may return

'true' or 'false'), and this is not the case for the mentioned set

of rules. The set of rules appropriate for equality in FL is

in fact the rules given for == in p.5.

* Contrary to the case of ==, the equality =, as described in p. 5,

can only return the value 'true'. Therefore, it is not correct to speak

about

"two kinds of equalities which have identical meaning on

ground expressions". In fact, = could be 'defined' by means of

the set of rules in p.4 (although the implementation would

not follow the 'normal' mechanism of evaluation, because the generation

of infinite ground solutions is replaced by unification).

* A question: do you think that the report should fix the evaluation

strategy for = and ==? We think not. For instance, one implementation

could, for simplicity, evaluate e=e' by reducing e and e' to normal

form before performing unification (this is the mechanism suggested

in p. 5). But other implementations could try more sophisticated

ways for performing unification incrementally. This done so,

e.g, in our implementations (TOY, BabLog).

That's all for the moment for the technical stuff. In the organizative

level of the Curry iniciative, we think that it would be convenient:

1. To identify the different institutions o groups which want

to be involved in the Curry initiative.

2. To have a representant of each group.

3. To start thinking about possible mechanisms for taking decisions.

What is your opinion about that?

Best regards,

Paco Lopez,

-- Francisco J. Lopez-Fraguas Dep. Informatica y Automatica Fac. Matematicas Av. Complutense s/n Universidad Complutense de Madrid 28040 Madrid SPAIN Phone: +34 1 3944429 Fax: +34 1 3944607 email: fraguas_at_dia.ucm.esReceived on Thu Jan 23 1997 - 18:38:18 CET

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Mon Nov 11 2019 - 07:15:05 CET
*