ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Constraint logic programming
Full text PdfPdf (725 KB)
Source Annual Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages archive
Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN symposium on Principles of programming languages table of contents
Munich, West Germany
Pages: 111 - 119  
Year of Publication: 1987
ISBN:0-89791-215-2
Authors
J. Jaffar  I.B.M. Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, N.Y., U.S.A
J.-L. Lassez  I.B.M. Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, N.Y., U.S.A
Sponsor
SIGPLAN: ACM Special Interest Group on Programming Languages
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 17,   Downloads (12 Months): 149,   Citation Count: 191
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/41625.41635
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

We address the problem of designing programming systems to reason with and about constraints. Taking a logic programming approach, we define a class of programming languages, the CLP languages, all of which share the same essential semantic properties. From a conceptual point of view, CLP programs are highly declarative and are soundly based within a unified framework of formal semantics. This framework not only subsumes that of logic programming, but satisfies the core properties of logic programs more naturally. From a user's point of view, CLP programs have great expressive power due to the constraints which they naturally manipulate. Intuition in the reasoning about programs is enhanced as a result of working directly in the intended domain of discourse. This contrasts with working in the Herbrand Universe wherein every semantic object has to be explicitly coded into a Herbrand term; this enforces reasoning at a primitive level. Finally, from an implementor's point of view, CLP systems can be efficient because of the exploitation of constraint solving techniques over specific domains.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
 
2
A. Boming, THINGLAB - A Constraint Orientated Simulation Laboratory, A CM TOPLAS, 3(4), 1981.
 
3
A. Colmerauer, Prolog and Infinite Trees, in: Logic Programming, K.L. Clark and S.A. Tarnhmd (Eds.), Academic Press, New York, 1982.
 
4
A. Colmerauer, Solving Equations and Inequations on Finite and Infinite Trees, Proc. Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, Tokyo, November 1984.
 
5
 
6
J. Jaffar and J-L. Lassez, Constraint Logie Programruing, Technical Report, Department of Computer Science, Monash University, June 1986.
 
7
N.C. Helntze, J. Jaffar, C.S. Lira, S. Michaylov, P.J. Stuckey, R. Yap and C.N. Yee, The CLP Programmer's Manual, Department of Computer Science, Monash University, June 1986.
 
8
J. Jaffar, J-L. Lassez and M.J. Mailer, A Logic Programming Language Scheme, in" Logic Programming: Relations, Functions and ~quations, D. DeGroot, G. Lindstrom (eds.), Prentice Hall, 1986.
 
9
J. Jaffar, J-L. Lassez and M.J. Maher, PROLOG-II as an Instance of the Logic Programming Language Scheme, in Formal Descriptions of Programming Concepts, M. Wirsing (Ed), North-HoUand, 1986.
 
10
 
11
J. Jaffar and S. Michaylov, Methodology and Implementation of a Constraint Logic Programming System, Technical Report, Computer Science Dept., Monash University, June 1986.
 
12
 
13
 
14
J. Jaffar and P.J. Stuckey, A Separation Algorithm for Theories with Uainterpreted Functors, Forthcoming.
 
15
 
16

CITED BY  192