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

From: Jaime Sánchez Hernández <jaime_at_sip.ucm.es>

Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 15:03:34 +0200

Hi,

we are currently working on failure in functional logic programming (for

those interested, see [1]) since we think that language constructions to

express and manage failure should be useful in FLP, as it happens with

negation as failure in logic programming. One of such constructions are

Juanjo's default rules ([2]) and we agree with Michael when he suggests to

use them. With default rules the definition of a function f (of, say, arity

2) might take the form (for simplicity, we write here unconditional rules)

f t1 s1 = e1

... (t1,tn,s1,sn are patterns, e1,en,e expressions)

f tn sn = en

default f x y = e

with the intuitive (operational) meaning: to reduce (f e e'), proceed with

the n first equations, as in a 'normal' definition. If the reduction fails,

then use the default rule.

*>how is the
*

*>following Haskell function translated into a deterministic Curry
*

*>function with default rules?
*

*>
*

*> data T = A | B | C | D
*

*> foo A _ = 0
*

*> foo _ A = 0
*

*> foo B _ = 1
*

*> foo _ B = 1
*

*> foo _ _ = 2
*

*>
*

This can be done by using auxiliary functions, each using a default rule:

foo A _ = 0

default foo x y = foo' x y

where foo' _ A = 0

default foo' x y = foo'' x y

where foo'' B _ = 1

default foo'' x y = foo''' x y

where foo''' _ B = 1

default foo''' x y = foo'''' x y

where foo'''' _ _ = 2

Of course, some syntactic support (e.g, to allow consecutive default rules)

could be provided in the language to avoid such complicated definitions.

Nevertheless there is a problem with default rules:

As mentioned by Michael, the default rule does not have an equational reading

in itself, because its meaning depends on the previous rules. Things are

better (with respect to this issue) if we express default rules by means of a

new, more general construction , to express failure:

fail e ::= succeedes if the expression e fails to be reduced

The definition

f t1 s1 = e1

...

f tn sn = en

default f x y = e

can be now written as

f t1 s1 = e1

...

f tn sn = en

f x y = e <== fail (f' x y) (conditional rule, probably in wrong

Curry syntax; sorry for that)

where f' t1 s1 = e1

...

f' tn sn = en

and all the rules for f, including the last one, have a declarative reading

by themselves.

The original default rule syntax could be seen as syntactic sugaring.

[1] F.J. Lopez-Fraguas, J. Sanchez-Hernandez: Proving Failure in

Functional

Logic Programs, CL2000, LNAI 1861, 179-193.

[2] J.J. Moreno-Navarro: Extending constructive negation for partial

functions in lazy functional-logic languages, ELP'96,LNAI 1050, 213-227.

(Juanjo has also a previous paper for non-lazy functions in ICLP'95).

Best,

Jaime Sanchez Hernandez, Francisco Javier Lopez Fraguas

Dep. Sistemas Informaticos y Programacion

Universidad Complutense de Madrid

email: jaime_at_sip.ucm.es fraguas_at_sip.ucm.es

_______________________________________________

curry mailing list

curry_at_lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE

http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/curry

Received on Wed Oct 04 2000 - 08:39:29 CEST

Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 15:03:34 +0200

Hi,

we are currently working on failure in functional logic programming (for

those interested, see [1]) since we think that language constructions to

express and manage failure should be useful in FLP, as it happens with

negation as failure in logic programming. One of such constructions are

Juanjo's default rules ([2]) and we agree with Michael when he suggests to

use them. With default rules the definition of a function f (of, say, arity

2) might take the form (for simplicity, we write here unconditional rules)

f t1 s1 = e1

... (t1,tn,s1,sn are patterns, e1,en,e expressions)

f tn sn = en

default f x y = e

with the intuitive (operational) meaning: to reduce (f e e'), proceed with

the n first equations, as in a 'normal' definition. If the reduction fails,

then use the default rule.

This can be done by using auxiliary functions, each using a default rule:

foo A _ = 0

default foo x y = foo' x y

where foo' _ A = 0

default foo' x y = foo'' x y

where foo'' B _ = 1

default foo'' x y = foo''' x y

where foo''' _ B = 1

default foo''' x y = foo'''' x y

where foo'''' _ _ = 2

Of course, some syntactic support (e.g, to allow consecutive default rules)

could be provided in the language to avoid such complicated definitions.

Nevertheless there is a problem with default rules:

As mentioned by Michael, the default rule does not have an equational reading

in itself, because its meaning depends on the previous rules. Things are

better (with respect to this issue) if we express default rules by means of a

new, more general construction , to express failure:

fail e ::= succeedes if the expression e fails to be reduced

The definition

f t1 s1 = e1

...

f tn sn = en

default f x y = e

can be now written as

f t1 s1 = e1

...

f tn sn = en

f x y = e <== fail (f' x y) (conditional rule, probably in wrong

Curry syntax; sorry for that)

where f' t1 s1 = e1

...

f' tn sn = en

and all the rules for f, including the last one, have a declarative reading

by themselves.

The original default rule syntax could be seen as syntactic sugaring.

[1] F.J. Lopez-Fraguas, J. Sanchez-Hernandez: Proving Failure in

Functional

Logic Programs, CL2000, LNAI 1861, 179-193.

[2] J.J. Moreno-Navarro: Extending constructive negation for partial

functions in lazy functional-logic languages, ELP'96,LNAI 1050, 213-227.

(Juanjo has also a previous paper for non-lazy functions in ICLP'95).

Best,

Jaime Sanchez Hernandez, Francisco Javier Lopez Fraguas

Dep. Sistemas Informaticos y Programacion

Universidad Complutense de Madrid

email: jaime_at_sip.ucm.es fraguas_at_sip.ucm.es

_______________________________________________

curry mailing list

curry_at_lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE

http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/curry

Received on Wed Oct 04 2000 - 08:39:29 CEST

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