How do I rewrite the following so it uses if_?

后端 未结 3 1951
星月不相逢
星月不相逢 2020-12-11 17:54

I am doing some easy exercises to get a feel for the language.

is_list([]).
is_list([_|_]).

my_flatten([],[]).
my_flatten([X|Xs],RR) :-
   my_flatten(Xs,R),         


        
3条回答
  •  囚心锁ツ
    2020-12-11 18:22

    (Sorry, I somewhat skipped this)

    • Please refer to P07. It clearly states that it flattens out [a, [b, [c, d], e]], but you and @Willem produce:
        ?- my_flatten([a, [b, [c, d], e]], X).
        X = [a,b,[c,d],e].   % not flattened!
    
    • And the solution given there succeeds for
        ?- my_flatten(non_list, X).
        X = [non_list].      % unexpected, nothing to flatten
    
    • Your definition of is_list/1 succeeds for is_list([a|non_list]). Commonly, we want this to fail.

    What you need is a safe predicate to test for lists. So let's concentrate on that first:

    What is wrong with is_list/1 and if-then-else? It is as non-monotonic, as many other impure type testing predicates.

    ?- Xs = [], is_list([a|Xs]).
    Xs = [].
    
    ?- is_list([a|Xs]).     % generalization, Xs = [] removed
    false.                  % ?!? unexpected
    

    While the original query succeeds correctly, a generalization of it unexpectedly fails. In the monotonic part of Prolog, we expect that a generalization will succeed (or loop, produce an error, use up all resources, but never ever fail).

    You have now two options to improve upon this highly undesirable situation:

    Stay safe with safe inferences, _si!

    Just take the definition of list_si/1 in place of is_list/1. In problematic situations, your program will now abort with an instantiation error, meaning "well sorry, I don't know how to answer this query". Be happy for that response! You are saved from being misled by incorrect answers.

    In other words: There is nothing wrong with ( If_0 -> Then_0 ; Else_0 ), as long as the If_0 handles the situation of insufficient instantiations correctly (and does not refer to a user defined program since otherwise you will be again in non-monotonic behaviour).

    Here is such a definition:

    my_flatten(Es, Fs) :-
       list_si(Es),
       phrase(flattenl(Es), Fs).
    
    flattenl([]) --> [].
    flattenl([E|Es]) -->
       ( {list_si(E)} -> flattenl(E) ;  [E] ),
       flattenl(Es).
    
    ?- my_flatten([a, [b, [c, d], e]], X).
    X = [a,b,c,d,e].
    

    So ( If_0 -> Then_0 ; Else_0 ) has two weaknesses: The condition If_0 might be sensible to insufficient instantiations, and the Else_0 may be the source of non-monotonicity. But otherwise it works. So why do we want more than that? In many more general situations this definition will now bark back: "Instantiation error"! While not incorrect, this still can be improved. This exercise is not the ideal example for this, but we will give it a try.

    Use a reified condition

    In order to use if_/3 you need a reified condition, that is, a definition that carries it's truth value as an explicit extra argument. Let's call it list_t/2.

    ?- list_t([a,b,c], T).
    T = true.
    
    ?- list_t([a,b,c|non_list], T).
    T = false.
    
    ?- list_t(Any, T).
       Any = [],
       T = true
    ;  T = false,
       dif(Any,[]),
       when(nonvar(Any),Any\=[_|_])
    ;  Any = [_],
       T = true
    ;  Any = [_|_Any1],
       T = false,
       dif(_Any1,[]),
       when(nonvar(_Any1),_Any1\=[_|_])
    ;  ...
    

    So list_t can also be used to enumerate all true and false situations. Let's go through them:

    1. T = true, Any = [] that's the empty list
    2. T = false, dif(Any, []), Any is not [_|_] note how this inequality uses when/2
    3. T = true, Any = [_] that's all lists with one element
    4. T = true, Any = [_|_Any1] ... meaning: we start with an element, but then no list
    list_t(Es, T) :-
       if_( Es = []
          , T = true
          , if_(nocons_t(Es), T = false, ( Es = [_|Fs], list_t(Fs, T) ) )
          ).
    
    nocons_t(NC, true) :-
       when(nonvar(NC), NC \= [_|_]).
    nocons_t([_|_], false).
    

    So finally, the reified definition:

    :- meta_predicate( if_(1, 2, 2, ?,?) ).
    
    my_flatten(Es, Fs) :-
       phrase(flattenl(Es), Fs).
    
    flattenl([]) --> [].
    flattenl([E|Es]) -->
       if_(list_t(E), flattenl(E), [E] ),
       flattenl(Es).
    
    if_(C_1, Then__0, Else__0, Xs0,Xs) :-
       if_(C_1, phrase(Then__0, Xs0,Xs), phrase(Else__0, Xs0,Xs) ).
    
    ?- my_flatten([a|_], [e|_]).
       false.
    
    ?- my_flatten([e|_], [e|_]).
       true
    ;  true
    ;  true
    ...
    
    ?- my_flatten([a|Xs], [a]).
       Xs = []
    ;  Xs = [[]]
    ;  Xs = [[],[]]
    ...
    
    ?- my_flatten([X,a], [a]).
       X = []
    ;  X = [[]]
    ;  X = [[[]]]
    ;  X = [[[[]]]]
    ...
    
    ?- my_flatten(Xs, [a]).
    *** LOOPS *** at least it does not fail
    

提交回复
热议问题