A Higher-Order Logic Programming Language with Constraints

  • Javier Leach
  • Susana Nieva
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2024)

Abstract

We present a framework for the combination of Constraint Logic Programming (tiCLP) and higher-order Hereditary Harrop Formulas (tihoHH). Our aim is to improve the expressiveness of traditional Logic Programming with the benefits of both fields: tiCLP and tihoHH. The result is denoted higher-order Hereditary Harrop Formulas with Constraints (hoHH(C)). The syntax of hoHH is introduced using lambda-terms and is enriched with a basic constraint system. Then an intuitionistic sequent calculus is defined for this combined logic, that preserves the property of an abstract logic programming language. In addition, a sound and complete procedure for goal solving is presented as a transformation system that explains the operational semantics.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Clark, K.L., Negation as Failure, in: H. Gallaire and J. Minker (eds.), Logic and Databases 293–322, Plenum Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Felty, A., Implementing Tactics and Tacticals in a Higher-Order Logic Programming Language, Journal of Automated Reasoning 11(1):43–81 (1993).MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hanus, M. (ed.), Curry: an Integrated Functional Logic Language, Version 0.7, February 2, 2000. Available at http://www.informatik.uni-kiel.de/~curry/.
  4. 4.
    Jaffar, J. and Maher, M.J., Constraint Logic Programming: A Survey, Journal of Logic Programming 19(20):503–581 (1994).CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leach, J., Nieva, S. and Rodrìguez-Artalejo, M., Constraint Logic Programming with Hereditary Harrop Formulas in: J. Maluszyʼnnski (ed.), ILPS’97 307–321, MIT Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Michaylov, S., Pfenning, F., Higher-Order Logic Programming as Constraint Logic Programming, in: Proc. of First Workshop on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, 221–229, Brown University, 1993.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Miller, D., A Logical Analysis of Modules in Logic Programming, Journal of Logic Programming 6(1,2):79–108 (1989).CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Miller, D., Nadathur, G., Pfenning, F. and Scedrov, A., Uniform Proofs as a Foundation for Logic Programming, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 51:125–157 (1991).CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miller, D., Nadathur, G. and Scedrov, A., Hereditary Harrop Formulas and Uniform Proof Systems, in: D. Gries (ed.), LICS’87 98–105, IEEE Comp. Soc. Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nadathur, G. and Miller, D., An Overview of λ-Prolog, in: K.A. Bowen and R. A. Kowalski (eds.), ICLP’88 810–827, MIT Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nerode, A., Some Lectures on Intuitionistic Logic, in: S. Homer, A. Nerode, R.A. Platek, G.E. Sacks, A. Scedrov (eds.), LCS’88 12–59, Springer LNM 1429, 1988.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Saraswat, V., The Category of Constraint Systems is Cartesian Closed, in: LICS’92 341–345, IEEE Comp. Soc. Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tarski, A., A Decision Method for Elementary Algebra and Geometry, University of California Press, 1951.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Javier Leach
    • 1
  • Susana Nieva
    • 1
  1. 1.Dpto. de Sistemas Informáticos y ProgramaciónUniv. Complutense de MadridSpain

Personalised recommendations