Translating a Linear Logic Programming Language into Java
There have been several proposals for logic programming language based on linear logic: Lolli [8], Lygon [7], LO [3], LinLog [2], Forum [11], HACL [10]. In these languages, it is possible to create and consume resources dynamically as logical formulas. The efficient handling of resource formulas is,...
Uloženo v:
| Vydáno v: | Electronic notes in theoretical computer science Ročník 30; číslo 3; s. 20 - 45 |
|---|---|
| Hlavní autoři: | , |
| Médium: | Journal Article |
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Vydáno: |
Elsevier B.V
2000
|
| ISSN: | 1571-0661, 1571-0661 |
| On-line přístup: | Získat plný text |
| Tagy: |
Přidat tag
Žádné tagy, Buďte první, kdo vytvoří štítek k tomuto záznamu!
|
| Shrnutí: | There have been several proposals for logic programming language based on linear logic: Lolli [8], Lygon [7], LO [3], LinLog [2], Forum [11], HACL [10]. In these languages, it is possible to create and consume resources dynamically as logical formulas. The efficient handling of resource formulas is, therefore, an important issue in the implementation of these languages. Lolli, Lygon, and Forum are implemented as interpreter systems; Lolli is on SML and λProlog, Lygon is on Prolog, Forum is on SML, λProlog and Prolog. However, none of them have been implemented in Java.
In this paper, we describe the Prolog Café 1 system which translates a linear logic programming language called LLP to Java via the LLPAM [12] [5], an extension of the standard WAM [16] [1] for LLP. LLP is a superset of Prolog and a subset of Lolli. The main difference from the first implementation [4] is resource compilation. That is to say, resource formulas are compiled into closures which consist of a reference of compiled code and a set of bindings for free variables. Calling these resources is integrated with the ordinary predicate invocation.
Prolog Café is portable to any platform supporting Java and easily expandable with increasing Java's class libraries. In performance, on average, Prolog Café generate 2.2 times faster code for a set of classical Prolog benchmarks compared with jProlog. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1571-0661 1571-0661 |
| DOI: | 10.1016/S1571-0661(05)80111-2 |