Ciao-users

ciao-users@cliplab.org

948 discussions

EmacsW32 not starting in Ciao mode
by Luis Iraola 04 Aug '11

04 Aug '11

Dear all, After installing the latest available version of EmacsW32, I have installed version 1.14.0 of Ciao Prolog and I am getting the following message in file environment_ciao.log: Please verify that no errors appears in this log file Command executed: "C:\Program Files\CiaoDE\makedir\runwin32.bat" "C:\Program Files\CiaoDE\build\objs\Win32i86\ciaoengine.exe" "C:\Program Files\Emacs\emacs\bin" Output: {WARNING (make_rt): Target environment does not exist} This message may (or may be not) be related with the problem I am experiencing: when launching the Ciao Graphical Development Environment, the Emacs editor does not start in Ciao mode. I get this message in the Emacs messages area: Cannot open load file: c:/Program Files/CiaoDE/emacs-mode/ciao-mode-init.el There is certainly no such file at that address, instead an "skeleton" file is found, but I do not know what to do with it. I have no experience with Emacs and just using the skeleton file as provided (removing the .skel suffix) removes the previous error and produces a new one: Symbol's value as variable is void: <v>CIAOLIBDIR</v> Any help will be much appreciated. Thanks in advance, Luis Iraola.

1 0

(no subject)
by Aizen, Meir (GE Healthcare) 02 Aug '11

02 Aug '11

Pls. remove my email from your distribution list

1 0

sending massages
by Damir Zovko 02 Aug '11

02 Aug '11

Dear friends! Please don't send me any email massages! Thank You in advance. Best regards; DAMIR ZOVKO BRAĆE DOMANY 6 ZAGREB 10000 CROATIA. damirz7(a)email.t-com.hr

1 0

R: Re: R: Re: Question about tail call optimization
by silviaumiliacchi＠libero.it 01 Aug '11

01 Aug '11

I think so too. I solved that question with your very helpful answer. I take this opportunity to ask you other two smaller questions. I'm trying to make some tests on some popular Prolog systems, like SWI-Prolog, SICStus, because I'd like, for my thesis, to show a comparison between the execution time necessary for solving a query with Tail Call Optimization enabled and the time spent with no optimization. In SWI-Prolog that's easy, because there is an appropriate flag, which can be changed with the set_prolog_flag/2 predicate. In SICStus, instead, I didn't found anything like that. I tried to add to my theory a dummy goal to avoid tail call optimization, but it seems not to work (execution time doesn't change). Do you have any suggestions? Do you know other Prolog systems in which it is simple to disable tail call optimization? Moreover, to measure execution time, I write the following line: statistics (runtime, [T0|_]), doReps(fatt(20,F), 1000), statistics(runtime, [T1|_]), T is T1 -T0. DoReps is a predicate that I created to run the same query many times. The theory is about factorial computation. (in the example: 20!) I noticed that the time stored in the T variable changes every time I run the line above. Am I making some mistake? Thank you again, Silvia Umiliacchi >----Messaggio originale---- >Da: Bart.Demoen(a)cs.kuleuven.be >Data: 26/07/2011 19.53 >A: "silviaumiliacchi(a)libero.it"<silviaumiliacchi(a)libero.it> >Cc: <ciao-users(a)clip.dia.fi.upm.es> >Ogg: Re: [Ciao-users] R: Re: Question about tail call optimization > > >> first of all, thank you for your answer. You caught my doubt very well. >> It would be very helpful if you could send me the report you told about. > >I think something is wrong with ciao-users(a)clip.dia.fi.upm.es. >This was posted about a month ago and answered - no ? > >Cheers > >Bart Demoen > >Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm >

2 1

DES 2.4 Released
by fernan＠sip.ucm.es 07 Jul '11

07 Jul '11

[Apologies for multiple receptions] Hello. This is a mail just for informing that the new release Datalog Educational System version 2.4 http://des.sourceforge.net has been launched on July, 7th, 2011, and ported to Ciao Prolog 1.13.0 In the current release, safety and computability have been revisited for extending such concepts to aggregate metapredicates. Most safety checks are moved to compile-time, covering also the new metapredicate distinct/2 and equality over evaluable expresssions. This tabled metapredicate computes distinct outcomes for different values of given arguments and for a given relation, therefore widening the scope of the already supported distinct/1. Also, while evaluable expressions are already supported in comparison predicates, now it is possible to test for syntactic equivalence of non-reducible expressions as those containing null values. For instance, X=null, X+1=X+1 succeeds, whereas X=null,Y=null,X+1=Y+1 (X and Y are bound to different null values) and X=null,X+1=1+X (different syntax trees for left and right expressions) do not. Other enhancements include syntax error reporting: unbalanced parentheses warnings, incorrect use of grouping variables, and simplified syntax error messages. Also, goals involving negations and comparison built-ins are simplified. A new port to the recent GNU-Prolog 1.4.0 system replaces the old port to version 1.3.1. Finally, the new Windows GUI release ACIDE 0.8 with many improvements is released. A complete list of enhancements, changes and fixed bugs is attached to the end of this message. Please, see http://des.sourceforge.net for details. Best regards. ============================================================== Fernando Saenz Perez Profesor Titular de Universidad / Associate Professor Home Page: http://www.fdi.ucm.es/profesor/fernan Tel: + 34 913947642. Fax: + 34 913947547 Despacho / Office: 435 (4ª planta / 4th floor) Dept. Ingenieria del Software e Inteligencia Artificial / Department of Software Engineering and Artificial Intelligence Universidad Complutense de Madrid Facultad de Informatica C/Profesor Jose Garcia Santesmases, s/n E - 28040 Madrid. Spain ============================================================== Version 2.4 of DES (released on July, 7th, 2011) * Enhancements: o Safety and computability revisited for aggregate metapredicates. Most checks are moved to compile-time, covering also the new metapredicate distinct/2 and equality over evaluable expresssions o Added the Datalog tabled metapredicate distinct/2, which computes distinct outcomes for different values of given arguments and for a given relation. It takes effect when duplicates are enabled via the command /duplicates on o Comparison of expressions including null values are now supported. Two expressions are considered equivalent if they are syntactically equal. For instance, X=null,X+1=X+1 succeeds, whereas X=null,Y=null,X+1=Y+1 and X=null,X+1=1+X do not o Syntax error reporting about unbalanced parentheses in Datalog and SQL o Syntax error reporting for metapredicate group_by involving incorrect use of variables in Datalog o Simplified error reporting when syntax errors are detected o Compilation of Datalog rules keep variable program names for exploded rules (way cool in development mode) o Successive applications of not/1 are simplified instead of rewritten o Negated calls to primitives are simplified by their complemented counterparts (e.g., not(1<0) is translated to 1>=0). This in turn avoids the following null-related flaw: not(null\=null), which should be semantically equivalent to null=null o New commands: - /running_info Display whether running information (as the incremental number of consulted rules as they are read) is to be displayed - /running_info Switch Enable or disable display of running information (on or off, resp.) - /rm FileName Delete FileName from the file system - /del FileName Synonym for /rm - /system Goal Submit Goal to the underlying Prolog system (implementor's command) o Internal null identifiers are reset whenever the database is cleared, and they otherwise start from 0 instead of 1 o Enabling (disabling) flags with commands /compact_listings, /check, /development, /duplicates, /pretty_print, /safe, /simplification, and /verbose warns should they are already enabled (disabled, resp.) o New port to GNU-Prolog 1.4.0. Tested successfully for Ubuntu 10.04 and Windows 7 o New version of Windows GUI: ACIDE 0.8 with many impovements * Changes: o Most errors regarding incorrect use of set variables are moved from run-time to compile-time o Unknown columns, tables and views are enclosed between double quotes o Datalog prompt is restored upon exception when processing a SQL statement o Internal representation of Datalog rules. Compiled rules are referenced by its rule identifiers in compilation roots, instead of storing full copies, therefore reclaiming less memory o Each rule has attached its textual variable names if they come from user inputs or instead they are automatically generated o Showing Datalog compilations on the fly is also controlled by the command /show_compilations. Listings of compilations with the command /listing is still controlled by the command /development o Showing running information is enabled by default. Such information display is not sent to the log, if enabled * Fixed bugs: o Negated, compound calls involving either conjunction or disjunction were not correctly translated. Bug introduced in version 2.3 o A Datalog 'having' condition with a variable to the right was incorrectly translated o Compound expressions including aggregate function count/0 were rejected o Parentheses in arithmetic expressions involving infix operators were not displayed when required o The listing command in development mode with pattern Name/Arity did not filter by Arity o Evaluation of an expression containing a null returned a non ground null representation. This, for instance, made X=null,Y=null,X+1=Y+1 true

1 0

INAP/WLP 2011: Deadline Extension and Final Call for Papers
by Hans Tompits 01 Jul '11

01 Jul '11

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DEADLINE EXTENSION AND FINAL CALL FOR PAPERS 19th International Conference on Applications of Declarative Programming and Knowledge Management (INAP 2011) http://www.kr.tuwien.ac.at/inap11/ AND 25th Workshop on Logic Programming (WLP 2011) http://www.kr.tuwien.ac.at/wlp11/ Vienna, Austria, September 28-30, 2011 ***New submission deadline: July 15, 2011*** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Declarative programming is an advanced paradigm for the modeling and solving of complex problems. This specification method attracted increased attention over the last decades, e.g., in the domains of databases and natural language processing, for the modeling and the processing of combinatorial problems, and for establishing systems for the Web. INAP 2011 ========= INAP is a communicative and dense conference for intensive discussion of applications of important technologies around logic programming, constraint problem solving, and closely related computing paradigms. It comprehensively covers the impact of programmable logic solvers in the internet society, its underlying technologies, and leading edge applications in industry, commerce, government, and societal services. We invite high quality contributions on different aspects of declarative programming, constraint processing and knowledge management, as well as their use for distributed systems and the Web, including, but not limited to the following areas (the order does not reflect any priorities): * knowledge management, e.g., data mining, decision support, deductive databases; * distributed systems and the Web, e.g., agents and concurrent engineering, Semantic Web; * constraints, e.g., constraint systems, extensions of constraint (logic) programming; * theoretical foundations, e.g., deductive databases, nonmonotonic reasoning, knowledge representation; * systems and tools for academic and industrial use; * knowledge-based Web services - logic solvers and applications. This year, INAP consists of the following five tracks, covering relevant subareas of declarative methods: * Nonmonotonic Reasoning Track; * Applications Track; * Extensions of Logic Programming Track; * Constraint Programming Track; * Databases and Data Mining Track. WLP 2011 ======== The workshops on (constraint) logic programming serve as the scientific forum of the annual meeting of the Society of Logic Programming (GLP, Gesellschaft fuer Logische Programmierung e.V.). They bring together researchers interested in logic programming, constraint programming, and related areas like databases, artificial intelligence, and operations research. Previous workshops have been held in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and Egypt. Contributions are welcome on all theoretical, experimental, and application aspects of constraint programming (CP) and logic programming (LP), including, but not limited to the following areas: * foundations of CP and LP; * constraint solving and optimization; * extensions: functional logic programming, objects; * deductive databases, data mining; * knowledge representation and reasoning; * answer-set programming; * dynamics, updates, states, transactions; * interaction of CP and LP with other formalisms like agents, XML, JAVA; * program analysis, program transformation, program verification, meta programming; * parallelism and concurrency; * implementation techniques; * software techniques and programming support (e.g., types, modularity, design patterns, debugging, testing, systematic program development). * applications of logic programming; * CP/LP for the Semantic Web. The joint INAP and WLP event aims to promote the cross-fertilizing exchange of ideas and experiences among researches and students from the different communities interested in the foundations, applications, and combinations of high-level, declarative programming languages and related areas. The technical program of the event will include invited talks, presentations of refereed papers, and system demonstrations. Important Dates =============== Paper registration: July 8, 2011 (NEW!) Deadline for submissions: July 15 2011 (EXTENDED!) Notification of authors: August 12, 2011 (EXTENDED!) Camera-ready papers: August 22, 2011 (EXTENDED!) Conference & Workshop: September 28-30, 2011 Submissions =========== Authors are invited to submit long papers (no longer than 15 pages) or short papers (no longer than 6 pages) in the following categories: * technical papers; * application papers; * system descriptions. To mark the 25th anniversary of the WLP workshop series, we also encourage submissions to WLP 2011 (no longer than 6 pages) describing historical aspects of logic programming as well as personal reminiscences about the early days of logic programming. Submissions must be unpublished original work and not submitted for publication elsewhere. However, work that already appeared in informally published workshop proceedings may be submitted too. All submissions must be in PDF format using LaTeX2e and the Springer llncs.cls class file. Paper submission is electronic via the Easychair submission system, available at http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=inap2011 and http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=wlp2011, respectively. All accepted papers will be published in a technical report. As for previous joint INAP/WLP events, it is planned to publish selected papers in a post-conference proceedings volume in the Springer Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI) series. Conference Chair (INAP) ======================= Hans Tompits (Vienna University of Technology) Track Chairs (INAP) =================== Salvador Abreu (Universidade de Evora): Extensions of LP Track Dietmar Seipel (University of Wuerzburg): Databases & Data Mining Track Hans Tompits (Vienna University of Technology): NMR Track Masanobu Umeda (Kyushu Institute of Technology): Applications Track Armin Wolf (Fraunhofer FIRST): Constraint Programming Track Program Committee (INAP) ======================== Salvador Abreu (Universidade de Evora) Jose Alferes (Universidade Nova de Lisboa) Sergio Alvarez (Boston College) Grigoris Antoniou (University of Crete) Marcello Balduccini (Kodak Research Labs) Chitta Baral (Arizona State University) Christoph Beierle (FernUniversitaet in Hagen) Philippe Besnard (Universite Paul Sabatier) Stefan Brass (University of Halle) Gerd Brewka (University of Leipzig) Vitor Santos Costa (Universidade do Porto) James P. Delgrande (Simon Fraser University) Marc Denecker (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven) Marina De Vos (University of Bath) Daniel Diaz (University of Paris 1) Juergen Dix (Clausthal University of Technology) Esra Erdem (Sabanci University) Michael Fink (Vienna University of Technology) Gerhard Friedrich (Alpen-Adria-Universitaet Klagenfurt) Thom Fruehwirth (University of Ulm) Johannes Fuernkranz (Technische Universitaet Darmstadt) Michael Gelfond (Texas Tech University) Carmen Gervet (German University in Cairo) Ulrich Geske (University of Potsdam) Gopal Gupta (University of Texas at Dallas) Petra Hofstedt (Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus) Anthony Hunter (University College London) Katsumi Inoue (National Institute of Informatics) Tomi Janhunen (Aalto University) Gabriele Kern-Isberner (University of Dortmund) Nicola Leone (University of Calabria) Vladimir Lifschitz (University of Texas at Austin) Alessandra Mileo (National University of Ireland) Ulrich Neumerkel (Vienna University of Technology) Ilkka Niemelae (Aalto University) Vitor Nogueira (Universidade de Evora) David Pearce (Universidad Politecnica de Madrid) Reinhard Pichler (Vienna University of Technology) Axel Polleres (National University of Ireland) Enrico Pontelli (New Mexico State University) Irene Rodrigues (Universidade de Evora) Carolina Ruiz (Worcester Polytechnic Institute) Torsten Schaub (University of Potsdam) Dietmar Seipel (University of Wuerzburg) V.S. Subrahmanian (University of Maryland) Terrance Swift (Universidade Nova de Lisboa) Hans Tompits (Vienna University of Technology) Masanobu Umeda (Kyushu Institute of Technology) Kewen Wang (Griffith University) Emil Weydert (University of Luxembourg) Armin Wolf (Fraunhofer FIRST) Osamu Yoshie (Waseda University) Program Chair (WLP) =================== Hans Tompits (Vienna University of Technology) Program Committee (WLP) ======================= Slim Abdennadher (German University in Cairo) Gerd Brewka (University of Leipzig) Christoph Beierle (FernUniversitaet in Hagen) Francois Bry (University of Munich) Marc Denecker (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven) Marina De Vos (University of Bath) Juergen Dix (Clausthal University of Technology) Esra Erdem (Sabanci University) Wolfgang Faber (University of Calabria) Michael Fink (Vienna University of Technology) Thom Fruehwirth (University of Ulm) Carmen Gervet (German University in Cairo) Ulrich Geske (University of Potsdam) Michael Hanus (Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel) Petra Hofstedt (Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus) Steffen Hoelldobler (Dresden University of Technology) Tomi Janhunen (Aalto University) Gabriele Kern-Isberner (University of Dortmund) Alessandra Mileo (National University of Ireland) Axel Polleres (National University of Ireland) Torsten Schaub (University of Potsdam) Jan Sefranek (Comenius University) Dietmar Seipel (University of Wuerzburg) Hans Tompits (Vienna University of Technology) Armin Wolf (Fraunhofer FIRST) Local Organization ================== Johannes Oetsch Joerg Puehrer Hans Tompits Contact ======= Hans Tompits Knowledge-Based Systems Group E184/3 Institute of Information Systems Vienna University of Technology Favoritenstrasse 9-11 A-1040 Vienna Austria Email: inap11 [at] kr [dot] tuwien [dot] ac [dot] at wlp11 [at] kr [dot] tuwien [dot] ac [dot] at Homepages ========= http://www.kr.tuwien.ac.at/inap11/ http://www.kr.tuwien.ac.at/wlp11/

1 0

UNSUBSCRIBE
by Andrew Fiddimore 29 Jun '11

29 Jun '11

1 0

R: Re: Question about tail call optimization
by silviaumiliacchi＠libero.it 29 Jun '11

29 Jun '11

Dear Jose, thank you for your answer. I'll have a look at the paper you suggested me. Kind regards, Silvia Umiliacchi >----Messaggio originale---- >Da: jfran(a)clip.dia.fi.upm.es >Data: 28/06/2011 18.24 >A: "silviaumiliacchi(a)libero.it"<silviaumiliacchi(a)libero.it> >Cc: <ciao-users(a)clip.dia.fi.upm.es> >Ogg: Re: [Ciao-users] Question about tail call optimization >Dear Silvia, > >Last call optimization (LCO) removes frame environments when possible, >thus transforming some recursions into loops. That optimization is >done at compile time when possible. There are many papers in the >literature where you can find a more detailed description >(H. Ait-Kaci. Warren's Abstract Machine, A Tutorial >Reconstruction). Basically, given a clause: > > p :- g1, g2, ..., gn1, gn. > >the compiler translates it into code (e.g., bytecode) that, between >'gn1' and 'gn', makes sure that all the arguments required for 'gn' >live in temporal registers, removes the environment frame, and jumps >to 'gn'. > >In order to reason about catch/3 and throw/1 you need some detailed >description of their semantic. Suppose a clause like: > > foo :- ..., catch(bar, ..., ...). > >If your question is whether LCO is able to remove the environment >created for 'foo' before calling 'bar', the answer is no. At least, >you need to 'uninstall' the exception handler when returning from >'bar'. To do that, you need to keep some information in the >enviroment. I do not think that it could be optimized (at least I am >not aware of any Prolog system which does). > >Cheers > >-- >Jose >

1 0

R: Re: Question about tail call optimization
by silviaumiliacchi＠libero.it 29 Jun '11

29 Jun '11

Dear Bart, first of all, thank you for your answer. You caught my doubt very well. It would be very helpful if you could send me the report you told about. thanks, kind regards Silvia Umiliacchi >----Messaggio originale---- >Da: Bart.Demoen(a)cs.kuleuven.be >Data: 28/06/2011 20.16 >A: "silviaumiliacchi(a)libero.it"<silviaumiliacchi(a)libero.it> >Cc: <ciao-users(a)clip.dia.fi.upm.es> >Ogg: Re: [Ciao-users] Question about tail call optimization > > >Hi Silvia, > >A Prolog system that does not implement LCO would not survive long. >You are right about catch/3 preventing LCO to some extent. You could >have a look at how catch/3 is implemented: depending on that, LCO is >dynamically (and locally) disabled, in a "natural" way. It is not >something the compiler (from Prolog to WAM for instance) needs to know >about. I can send you privately an old report named "A 20' >implementation of catch and throw in WAM" - SWI Prolog implements it >differently - I do not know how Ciao does it, but at some point in >SICStus, it was basically as my report describes, and Ciao derives >from SICStus. > >In a nutshell: LCO is (dynamically) detected not to apply if there is >a choicepoint blocking the reuse of an environment. The implementation >of catch/3 can push the necessary choicepoint (for unwinding) in such >a way that no special action is needed. > >Cheers > >Bart Demoen > >Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm >

1 0

Question about tail call optimization
by silviaumiliacchi＠libero.it 28 Jun '11

28 Jun '11

Good Morning, I'm a post-graduate student at University of Bologna. For my final thesis, I'm collecting informations about tail call optimization in a Prolog system. I read many articles on the web, and I found in Wikipedia that Ciao implements tail call optimization. My doubt is about when it is correct to perform this optimization; for example, when the query catch(Goal1, Arg, Goal2) calls the throw/1 predicate during the execution of Goal1, execution must go back to the catch predicate and proceed with Goal2. So, I think that no stack optimization can be performed in presence of this query and consequently it has to be disabled. I haven't found any documents that confirm my thought and the ISO standard doesn't specify anything on it. Please, can you help me? Thank you in advance and kind regards, Silvia Umiliacchi

2 1

← Newer
1
...
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
...
95
Older →

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

Ciao-users