Sterling, L., Meta-Interpreters: The Flavors of Logic Programming?, in: Proceedings of Workshop on foundation of Logic Programming and Deductive Databases, Washington, 1986  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....of the Third International Conference on Practical Applications of Prolog, Paris, April 1995 [7] Nilsson, N.J. Problem Solving Methods in Artificial Intelligence, McGraw Hill, New York, 1971 [8] Parsaye, K. and Chignell, M. Expert Systems for Experts, John Wiley Sons, New York, 1988 [9] Sterling, L. Meta Interpreters: The Flavors of Logic Programming , in: Proceedings of Workshop on foundation of Logic Programming and Deductive Databases, Washington, 1986 [10] Sterling, L. Constructing Meta Interpreters for Logic Programs, in: Advanced School on Foundations of Logic ....

Sterling, L., Meta-Interpreters: The Flavors of Logic Programming?, in: Proceedings of Workshop on foundation of Logic Programming and Deductive Databases, Washington, 1986

....implicitly, by the standard interpreter of PROLOG [13] Most other meta interpreters are derived by making extensions of this basic form. For this reason, the basic meta interpreter (see below) is usually called the vanilla meta interpreter in an obvious analogy with the ice cream flavors [9]. 3 solve(true) solve( A,B) solve(A) solve(B) solve(Goal) clause(Goal,Body) solve(Body) Program 2.2 (the vanilla meta interpreter) The clause reduction level mentioned above represents only one of many possible levels of abstraction on the computation of a meta interpreter. ....

Sterling, L., Meta-Interpreters: The Flavors of Logic Programming?, in: Proceedings of Workshop on foundation of Logic Programming and Deductive Databases, Washington, 1986

....a goal, and the choice of literal to generate the resolvent. Unification and backtracking are handled implicitly, relying upon the behaviour of PROLOG [8] Most other meta interpreters are derived by making extension of this basic form. According to the obvious analogy with ice cream flavors [6] this meta interpreter is called vanilla. Here it is. 6 solve(true) solve( A,B) solve(A) solve(B) solve(Goal) clause(Goal,Body) solve(Body) Program 2.4 (the vanilla meta interpreter) The following meta interpreter is derived from the vanilla one. This derivation is very simple ....

Sterling, L., Meta-Interpreters: The Flavors of Logic Programming?, in: Proceedings of Workshop on foundation of Logic Programming and Deductive Databases, Washington, 1986

....implicitly, by the standard interpreter of PROLOG [16] Most other meta interpreters are derived by making extensions of this basic form. For this reason, the basic meta interpreter (see below) is usually called the vanilla meta interpreter in an obvious analogy with the ice cream flavors [12]. solve(true) solve( A,B) solve(A) solve(B) solve(Goal) clause(Goal,Body) solve(Body) Program 2.2 (the vanilla meta interpreter) The clause reduction level mentioned above represents only one of many possible levels of abstraction on the computation of a meta interpreter. When ....

Sterling, L., Meta-Interpreters: The Flavors of Logic Programming?, in: Proceedings of Workshop on foundation of Logic Programming and Deductive Databases, Washington, 1986

....clauses as a unit, and an ordered set of units as a context. Nadathur et al. 30] create a new context adding clauses in an implication goal to the current context in their system. Some other researchers in the logic programming community have sought meta level facilities in meta interpreters [11, 35, 37, 38, 39, 44] based on Prolog. Even standard Prolog [10, 16, 36] has some meta level facilities. The predicates assert and retract add and remove clauses from a system wide database by destroying the old version of that database. The meta predicate call tries to prove an explicitly given goal with respect to ....

....in the system developed by Lamma et al. Since we are not aware of any WAM based system which collects proofs and uses them to shrink search spaces of goals in the literature, we are not able to compare our implementation with any other system. There are meta interpreters which collect proofs [36, 37, 38, 39, 40], but they do not efficiently implement proofs because of the extra layer of interpretation. To the best of our knowledge, our system is the only system in the literature which deals with proofs at WAM level. To handle proofs, we use extra registers and assign different meanings to procedural ....

Sterling, L.S., Meta-Interpreters: The Flavors of Logic Programming?, in: Proc. of Workshop on Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, Washington D.C., 1986, pp. 163-175.

....described in this paper we have implemented two software prototypes in Prolog based on concepts of meta interpretation and meta variables respectively. Because the implementation of CLP(H) requires changes of the inference machine of Prolog, we use a standard technique called meta interpretation [1,22,23,24] first. We utilize the concept of extendible meta interpreter which we proposed in our previous papers [2,3,4,5] Extendible meta interpreter is a meta interpreter whose functionality can be extended via plug in modules. The skeleton of such extendible meta interpreter, we call it kernel, is as ....

Sterling, L., Meta-Interpreters: The Flavors of Logic Programming?, in: Proceedings of Workshop on foundation of Logic Programming and Deductive Databases, Washington, 1986

No context found.

Sterling, L.S., Meta-Interpreters: The Flavors of Logic Programming?, in: Proc. of Workshop on Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, Washington D.C., 1986, pp. 163-175.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC