Talk:Concurrent constraint logic programming: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
description is too restrictive |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
There should be some discussion of concrete languages supporting this paradigm, both historical (e.g. [[Flat Concurrent Prolog]]), and current (e.g. [[Oz programming language|Oz]] and [[Alice programming language|Alice]]). --[[User:DavidHopwood|DavidHopwood]] 19:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
There should be some discussion of concrete languages supporting this paradigm, both historical (e.g. [[Flat Concurrent Prolog]]), and current (e.g. [[Oz programming language|Oz]] and [[Alice programming language|Alice]]). --[[User:DavidHopwood|DavidHopwood]] 19:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
''Semantically, concurrent constraint logic programming differs from its non-concurrent versions because a goal evaluation is intended to realize a concurrent process rather than finding a solution to a problem. Most notably, this difference affects how the interpreter behaves when more than one clause is applicable: non-concurrent constraint logic programming recursively tries all clauses; concurrent constraint logic programming chooses only one. This is the most evident effect of an intended directionality of the interpreter, which never revise a choice it has previously taken.'' |
|||
:This seems unnecessarily restrictive. For instance, Oz does recursively try all clauses in the worst case, and Oz is clearly a concurrent constraint logic language. --[[User:David-Sarah Hopwood|David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥]] ([[User talk:David-Sarah Hopwood|talk]]) 19:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 19:27, 3 December 2009
There should be some discussion of concrete languages supporting this paradigm, both historical (e.g. Flat Concurrent Prolog), and current (e.g. Oz and Alice). --DavidHopwood 19:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Semantically, concurrent constraint logic programming differs from its non-concurrent versions because a goal evaluation is intended to realize a concurrent process rather than finding a solution to a problem. Most notably, this difference affects how the interpreter behaves when more than one clause is applicable: non-concurrent constraint logic programming recursively tries all clauses; concurrent constraint logic programming chooses only one. This is the most evident effect of an intended directionality of the interpreter, which never revise a choice it has previously taken.
- This seems unnecessarily restrictive. For instance, Oz does recursively try all clauses in the worst case, and Oz is clearly a concurrent constraint logic language. --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)