Talk:Concurrent constraint logic programming: Difference between revisions

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)

This title should be "Concurrent constraint programming", like

• Saraswat, V. A., and Rinard M. Concurrent Constraint Programming. In Proceedings of Seventeenth ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, January 1990
• Saraswat, V. A., Rinard M. and P. Panangaden. Semantic Foundation of Concurrent Constraint Programming. In Proceedings of 18th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, 1991

--User:PatricH Winston 06:16, 2 Feb 2010 (UTC)