FIDO: Finite domain consistency techniques in logic programming

  • Manfred Meyer
  • Hans -Günther Hein
  • Jörg Müller
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 592)


In this paper we discuss different implementation for FIDO, a logic programming language with finite domain constraints and consistency techniques. These approaches range from meta-interpretation over horizontal compilation (source-to-source transformation) through vertical compilation down to an extended Warren Abstract Machine. We will stress the horizontal compilation approach which already shows promising results, whereas the deeper integration on a lower implementation layer by extending the unification and control instructions of the WAM will finally give much better performance results.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    H. Boley, P. Hanschke, K. Hinkelmann, and M. Meyer. COLAB: A Hybrid Knowledge Compilation Laboratory. Annals of Operations Research, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    M. Carlsson. Freeze, Indexing, and Other Implementation Issues in the WAM. In J.-L. Lassez, editor, Proc. ICLP-87, Melbourne, Australia, May 1987. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    A. Colmerauer. Opening the Prolog III Universe. BYTE, pages 177–182, August 1987.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    D. de Schreye, D. Pollet, J. Ronsyn, and M. Bruynooghe. Implementing Finite-domain Constraint Logic Programming on Top of a PROLOG-System with Delay-mechanism. In N. Jones, editor, Proc. of ESOP 90, pages 106–117, 1990.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    M. Dincbas, P. van Hentenryck, H. Simonis, A. Aggoun, T. Graf, and F. Berthier. The Constraint Logic Programming Language CHIP. In Proc. FGCS'88, Tokyo, December 1988.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    H.-G. Hein. Consistency Techniques in WAM-based Architectures. Master's thesis, Univ. Kaiserslautern, FB Informatik, Postfach 3049, D-6750 Kaiserslautern, 1991. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    H.-G. Hein and M. Meyer. A WAM Compilation Scheme. In Proceedings of the 2 nd Russian Conference on Logic Programming. Lecture Notes in AI, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Ch. Holzbaur. Realization of Forward Checking in Logic Programming through Extended Unification. Technical Report TR-90-11, Austrian Research Institute for Artifical Intelligence, June 1990.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    J. Jaffar and J.-L. Lassez. Constraint Logic Programming. In Proc. POPL-87, Munich, Germany, 1987.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    M. Meier, A. Aggoun, D. Chan, P. Dufresne, R. Enders, D.H. de Villeneuve, A. Herold, P. Kay, B. Perez, E. van Rossum, and J. Schimpf. SEPIA — An Extendible Prolog System. In G. Ritter, editor, Proc. IFIP 11th World Computer Congress, pages 1127–1132, 1989.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    M. Meyer and C. Jakfeld. CONTAX — A Constraint System over Taxonomies. ARC-TEC Discussion Paper 91-04, DFKI GmbH, P. O. Box 20 80, Kaiserslautern, Germany, 1991.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    J. Müller. Design and Implementation of a Finite Domain Constraint Logic Programming System based on PROLOG with Coroutining. Master's thesis, Universität Kaiserslautern, FB Informatik, Postfach 3049, D-6750 Kaiserslautern, 1991. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    S. Schrödl. FIDO: Ein Constraint-Logic-Programming-System mit Finite Domains. ARC-TEC Discussion Paper 91-5, DFKI GmbH, P. 0. Box 2080, Kaiserslautern, Germany, 1991.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    P. van Hentenryck. Constraint Satisfaction in Logic Programming. MIT Press, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manfred Meyer
    • 1
  • Hans -Günther Hein
    • 2
  • Jörg Müller
    • 2
  1. 1.German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI)KaiserslauternGermany
  2. 2.Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of KaiserslauternKaiserslauternGermany

Personalised recommendations