[mercury-users] Solver types and \=

Ralph Becket rafe at cs.mu.OZ.AU
Fri Aug 12 13:06:03 AEST 2005

Peter Schachte, Friday, 12 August 2005:
> I don't think it's the execution model, it's the assumption that
> anything not free is ground.

That is part of the implicit execution model: one of the key reasons for
having the mode system is so we don't have to suspend on certain
operations until a particular argument happens to become bound.

> Anyway, disallowing \= for any inst
> variables seems wrong, because disequality constraints are perfectly
> sensible.  Forbidding the most obvious expression of disequalities is
> unneighborly when there's a reasonable way to allow them (ie, allowing
> the solver writer to specify the method).

Most solvers that I've seen don't support disequality.

It would be nice if this all just worked, but right now we don't know
how to make CLP code work transparently in negated contexts without
totally changing the execution model and without crippling distributed
fat for non-CLP programs.

-- Ralph
mercury-users mailing list
post:  mercury-users at cs.mu.oz.au
administrative address: owner-mercury-users at cs.mu.oz.au
unsubscribe: Address: mercury-users-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: unsubscribe
subscribe:   Address: mercury-users-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: subscribe

More information about the users mailing list