Re: [eclipse-users] storing a context

From: VicenÁ <vgomez_at_...58...>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 18:04:34 +0200
Hello Joachim,

you are absolutely right. But I chose that small
example just for illustration purposes. I will try
to rephrase it in more illustrative terms.

Say you have:

cost(green, Size, Cost) :- Cost is Size*2.
cost(black, Size, Cost) :- Cost is Size/2.

Now you need to declare constraints on the Size
related with objects:

size(table, 10).
size(chair, 5).

but from another *totally independent* predicate
you want to constraint the same variable Size,
which could be, for instance, the second argument of
another predicate:

machine(a1, 10, ... ).
machine(a2, 20, ... ).

And even more, you have several independent
constraints which refer to the Size variable
and to another variables as well.

I can easily think in a Prolog program which binds the
Size variable to the same value in each constraint:

some_rule :- size(Obj,S),..,machine(A,S),..,cost(Col,S,C).

Or even:

% some_rule(Color, Object, Size, Machine, Cost)

some_rule(green, table, 10, a1, C) :- Cost is Size*2.
some_rule(green, chair, 5, a1, C) :- Cost is Size*2.
some_rule(black, table, 10, a1, C) :- Cost is Size/2.
some_rule(black, chair, 5, a1, C) :- Cost is Size/2.
some_rule(green, table, 10, a1, C) :- Cost is Size*2.
some_rule(green, table, 10, a2, C) :- Cost is Size*2.

Again this example could seem stupid, but imagine I have
hundreds of variables from which I need to declare
constraints just using *local* information, without
taking care of other relations with all the other variables
that only constraint that variable *indirectly*.
In the end I also want to see what are the instantiations
of all the involved variables.

Speaking in more technical terms, the "execution" of a
Prolog program can be viewed as the construction of
a "model", in which if variable Size has been already
instantiated, it should not take another value.
Because it is cumbersome to put all variables
as arguments (and also because not all models
will require all the variables) one has the necessity
of passing a "context" which includes the current
"partial" model.

One way to do that is to assert the value of a
variable the first time it is required and, in subsequent
steps, check if that variable has been previously
instantiated. Eventually (when the first binding fails)
we should backtrack and reassert the value to the next
possible one, and so on...This approach is inefficient.

An alternative way (the one I described in the other
mail) is to maintain a list (with all variables which
are being instantiated) which is passed as an argument
to all the predicates, and modified during the execution
flow. This requires a pre-compilation step to include
the lists in all predicates. You can think in this option
as the preprocessing step that Definite Clause
Grammars use in the --> operator definition.

I guess this problem is not related to the declarative
meaning of a program. It is simply a problem that
arises when dealing with big systems (high number of
variables) with a lot of interdependencies between them.

Mmm... sorry for this long email.
I hope it is clearer now...


> Remember that you are using a logic programming language, and think about
> the declarative meaning of your code.  A predicate is something that is
> true or false.  So what is the meaning of cost(C)?  It means
> "cost(C) is true iff C is a cost" or in other words "C is a cost".
> But the cost of what?  You see it makes no sense declaratively.
> What you probably want it a predicate like cost(Color,Size,Cost), which
> means "Cost is the cost of something with color Color and size Size",
> and it could be defined as
> cost(green, Size, Cost) :- Cost is Size*2.
> cost(black, Size, Cost) :- Cost is Size/2.
> ...
> -- Joachim
Received on Wed May 30 2007 - 17:04:48 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sun Aug 18 2019 - 21:14:41 CEST