From: Aleksandar Bakic <bakicale_at_cse.msu.edu>

Date: Mon 21 Feb 2000 07:43:00 PM GMT

Message-Id: <200002211943.OAA20264@pacific.cps.msu.edu>

Date: Mon 21 Feb 2000 07:43:00 PM GMT

Message-Id: <200002211943.OAA20264@pacific.cps.msu.edu>

Hi, I do not know if the following is possible in Prolog or ECLiPSe. I would like to be able to set some constraints, e.g., constraints(Ins, Outs) where Ins is a list of input variables, and Outs is a list of output variables (whose values are to be found based on given values of the Ins variables). Then, instead of instantiating all the Ins variables at once, I would like to do this incrementaly. Namely, if I instantiated them all at once, e.g., constraints(Ins, Outs), Ins = [...], labeling(Outs) it would take, say, N seconds before labeling(Outs) would start, because the instantiation of the Ins variables would trigger constraint propagation. My ECLiPSe program is supposed to run like a read-eval-print server, in "real time". I am interested in an incremental approach because I know some values of the Ins variables at t0, some at t1 (t1 > t0), and so on, the last Ins value at tk (tk > all the previous t's), and I would like to minimize the time that passes between tk and the start of labeling(Outs). I almost do not care about how much time it takes before I instantiate the last uninstantiated Ins variable (in an arbitrary order). I have tried a few approaches, both in embedded C++ and normal code, but am not sure about the correctness of ones that seemed efficient. It would be great if, with some tricks, I could replace start time constraints([A,B,C],Outs), t0 [A,B,C] = [1,2,3], t0+N labeling(Outs) with something like start time constraints([A,B,C],Outs), read(A), t0 read(B), t1 read(C), % value of C is entered at t2 t2+M labeling(Outs) where M << N. Without tricks, M = N. In C++, I used a list of references as Ins, and it seemed that the sum of constraint propagation times triggered by individual instantiations was equal to the time it takes to propagate all instantiations at once. However, references are not the same as logical variables, so I am not sure if this was correct. I would greatly appreciate any help. Aleksandar From: Aleksandar Bakic <bakicale@cse.msu.edu> Message-Id: <200002212002.PAA20859@pacific.cps.msu.edu> Subject: Re: Incremental propagation Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:02:45 -0500 (EST) I would like to add to my previous message, and hopefully make it clearer. Basically, I want to split the time it takes after [A,B,C] = [1,2,3] onto three time intervals that take after read(A), read(B) and read(C). So, all these constraint propagation times are related, and I want to minimize the last one. I just do not like the fact that without tricks, instantiating only one or all Ins variables takes about the same time, resulting in K-fold slowdown when Ins has K variables. > with something like > > start > time > constraints([A,B,C],Outs), > read(A), > t0 read(B), > t1 read(C), % value of C is entered at t2 > t2+M labeling(Outs) > > where M << N. Without tricks, M = N. In C++, I used a list of ^ approximately AleksReceived on Mon Feb 21 20:15:39 2000

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8
: Wed 16 Nov 2005 06:07:05 PM GMT GMT
*