Making control and data flow in logic programs explicit

Subscribe (Full Service)


	Search: The ACM Digital Library The Guide

	Feedback

Making control and data flow in logic programs explicit

Full text

Pdf (995 KB)

Source

Conference on LISP and Functional Programming archive
Proceedings of the 1984 ACM Symposium on LISP and functional programming table of contents

Austin, Texas, United States

Pages: 311 - 322

Year of Publication: 1984

ISBN:0-89791-142-3

Author

Gert Smolka

Sponsors

SIGACT: ACM Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory
SIGART: ACM Special Interest Group on Artificial Intelligence
SIGPLAN: ACM Special Interest Group on Programming Languages

Publisher

ACM New York, NY, USA

Bibliometrics

Downloads (6 Weeks): 9, Downloads (12 Months): 22, Citation Count: 2

Additional Information:

abstract references cited by index terms collaborative colleagues

Tools and Actions:	Request Permissions Review this Article Save this Article to a Binder Display Formats: BibTeX EndNote ACM Ref

DOI Bookmark:	Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/800055.802048 What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

New control constructs are proposed to replace Prolog's notorious cut. Totality assertions are introduced to enable a language-oriented editor to display the control structure of a procedure. Functional notation is presented as a syntactic extension. Data flow assertions are proposed to assert data flow properties and restrictions of logic procedures. Algorithms for their verification are given.

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	D.L. Bowen (ed.), DECsystem-10 Prolog User's Manual. Dept. of Art. Intelligence, University of Edinburgh, 1982.
	2	M. Bruynooghe, Adding Redundancy to Obtain More Reliable and More Readable Prolog Programs. Proc. of The First International Logic Programming Conference, Marseille, France, 1982, 129-133.
	3	M. Bruynooghe, The Memory Management of Prolog Implementations. In K. Clark and S.-A. Tarnlund (eds.), Logic Programming. Academic Press, 1982, 83-98.
	4	Paul R Eggert , D Val Schorre, Logic enhancement: A method for extending logic programming languages, Proceedings of the 1982 ACM symposium on LISP and functional programming, p.74-80, August 15-18, 1982, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States [doi>10.1145/800068.802137]
	5	A. Mycroft and R.A. O'Keefe, A Polymorphic Type System for Prolog. Dept. of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh, DAI research paper 211, 1983.
	6	Ehud Shapiro, Systems programming in concurrent prolog, Proceedings of the 11th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN symposium on Principles of programming languages, p.93-105, January 15-18, 1984, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States [doi>10.1145/800017.800520]
	7	P. A. Subrahmanyam , J-H. You, Pattern driven lazy reduction: A unifying evaluation mechanism for functional and logic programs, Proceedings of the 11th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN symposium on Principles of programming languages, p.228-234, January 15-18, 1984, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States [doi>10.1145/800017.800534]
	8	D.H.D. Warren, Implementing Prolog, Compiling Predicate Logic Programs. Research Reports 39 and 40, Dept. of Art. Intelligence, University of Edinburgh, 1977.
	9	D.H.D. Warren, Prolog on The DECsystem-10. In D. Michie (ed.), Expert Systems in The Micro Electronic Age. Edinburgh University Press, 1979, 112-121.
	10	D.H.D. Warren, Logic Programming and Compiler Writing. Software — Practice and Experience 10, 1980, 97-125.

CITED BY 2

	Jared L. Darlington, Search direction by goal failure in goal-oriented programming, ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS), v.12 n.2, p.224-252, April 1990
	J. O'Bagy , R. E. Griswold, A recursive interpreter for the Icon programming language, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, v.22 n.7, p.138-149, July 1987