Constraint solving in finite domains under user control
Constraint logic programming languages extend logic programming by providing constraint solving capabilities on particular domains, which are more powerful than normal unification. However, these capabilities are usually general-purpose and embedded in the language. In this paper we make a case for extending the user interaction with the constraint solver, namely to achieve better performances. More specifically we present for finite domains, an inference rule (SLAIR) which subsumes previously defined ones and improves their interactivity. Additionally, experimental results show that this rule leads to significant speedup in execution time.
KeywordsInference Rule Domain Variable Operational Semantic Finite Domain Constraint Solver
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- [Colm90]A. Colmerauer, Prolog III Universe, Communications of the ACM, Vol.33, Number 6, June 1990.Google Scholar
- [DVHS88]M. Dincbas, P. Van Hentenryck, H. Simonis, A. Aggoun, T. Graf and F. Berthier, The Constraint Logic Programming Language CHIP, Proceedings of the International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems (FGCS'88), Tokyo, December 1988.Google Scholar
- [Hent89]P. van Hentenryck, Constraint Satisfaction in Logic Programming, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1989).Google Scholar
- [JaLa87]J. Jaffar and J.-L. Lassez, Constraint Logic Programing, Proceedings of the 14th ACM POPL Symposium, Munich, January 1987.Google Scholar
- [JaMi87]J. Jaffar and S. Michaylov, Methodology and Implementation of a CLP System, Proceedings of the 4th ICLP, Melbourne, May 1987.Google Scholar
- [Shap89]Ehud Shapiro, The Family of Concurrent Logic Programming Languages, ACM Computing Surveys, Vol.21, Number 3, September 1989.Google Scholar