Skip to main content

Managing state in Prolog monadically, using DCGs.


Prolog is a beautiful language which makes a lot of irritating rudimentary rule application and search easy. I have found it is particularly nice when trying to deal with compilers which involve rule based transformation from a source language L to a target language L'.

However, the management of these rules generally requires keeping track of a context, and this context has to be explicitly threaded through the entire application, which involves a lot of irritating and error prone sequence variables. This often leads to your code looking something a bit like this:

compile(seq(a,b),(ResultA,ResultB),S0,S2) :- 
  compile(a,ResultA,S0,S1), 
  compile(b,ResultB,S1,S2).

While not the worst thing, I've found it irritating and ugly, and I've made a lot of mistakes with incorrectly sequenced variables. It's much easier to see sequence made explicitly textually in the code.

While they were not designed for this task, but rather for parsing, DCGs turn out to be a convenient way of doing this. In fact, a DCG is just a tool for sequencing variables with a bit of syntactic sugar for manipulating an input list, and an output list, which is generally considered to be the "not yet parsed" remainder.

The simple DCG given below consumes a list of the form [1,2,3].

one --> [1].
two --> [2]. 
three --> [3]. 

eat_list --> one, two, three.


The compiler will take this program and transform it into a number of associated predicates of the same name, with more arguments. The result of this complication phase might look a bit like the following code:

one([1|Rest],Rest). 
two([2|Rest],Rest). 
three([3|Rest],Rest). 

eat_list(In,Out) :- 
   one(In,S0), 
   two(S0,S1), 
   three(S1,Out).

This example looks surprisingly similar to the sort of thing we were doing before! We are threading state through the application, consuming some of it as it goes along.

So how can I easily use DCGs to manipulate state in my application? First, you have to decide what kind of state you want. We're going to opt for a simple option: a list of pairs of the form:

[key1=value1, key2=value2]

We can then introduce a couple of handy helper predicates:

update(C0,C1,S0,S1) :-
    select(C0,S0,C1,S1).

view(C0,S0,S0) :-
    member(C0,S0).

return(S0,_,S0).

Now we can easily thread things together to have a "stateful" approach to manipulation.

Imagine the following term language, a fragment of one cribbed from Dijkstra:

V = atom
Exp = V | integer | Exp + Exp | Exp * Exp
C = C0;C1 | (V := Exp)  

An interpreter for this language might be written in the following way:

eval(A + B, Val) -->
    eval(A,AVal),
    eval(B,BVal),
    {
        Val is AVal + BVal
    }.
eval(A * B, Val) -->
    eval(A,AVal),
    eval(B,BVal),
    {
        Val is AVal * BVal
    }.
eval(A, A) --> {number(A)}.
eval(A, V) -->
    {atom(A)},
    view(A=V).
    
interpret(C0;C1) --> 
    interpret(C0), 
    interpret(C1).
interpret(V:=Exp) -->
    eval(Exp,Val), 
    update(V=_,V=Val).


run :- 
    Term=(
        v := 1 + 3
    ;   w := v + v
    ;   w := w + 1),
    interpret(Term,[v=0,w=0],Result), 
    write(Result).

And presto! You get back the result:

[v=4,w=9]


As we can see, all the messy threading of state is handled very nicely! Perhaps the one rather irritating factor is the need to initialise our variables with some values. This could easily be fixed by changing the update/4 predicate, but we'll leave that as an exercise to the reader.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Automated Deduction and Functional Programming

I just got "ML for the working programmer" in the mail a few days ago,
and worked through it at a breakneck pace since receiving it. It
turns out that a lot of the stuff from the "Total Functional
Programming" book is also in this one. Paulson goes through the use
of structural recursion and extends the results by showing techniques
for proving a large class of programs to be terminating. Work with
co-algebras and bi-simulation didn't quite make it in, except for a
brief mention about co-variant types leading to the possibility of a
type: D := D → D which is the type of programs in the untyped lambda
calculus, and hence liable to lead one into trouble.

I have to say that having finished the book, this is the single most
interesting programming book that I've read since "Paradigms of
Artificial Intelligence Programming" and "Structure and Interpretation
of Computer Programs". In fact, I would rate this one above the other
two, though …

Decidable Equality in Agda

So I've been playing with typing various things in System-F which previously I had left with auxiliary well-formedness conditions. This includes substitutions and contexts, both of which are interesting to have well typed versions of. Since I've been learning Agda, it seemed sensible to carry out this work in that language, as there is nothing like a problem to help you learn a language.

In the course of proving properties, I ran into the age old problem of showing that equivalence is decidable between two objects. In this particular case, I need to be able to show the decidability of equality over types in System F in order to have formation rules for variable contexts. We'd like a context Γ to have (x:A) only if (x:B) does not occur in Γ when (A ≠ B). For us to have statements about whether two types are equal or not, we're going to need to be able to decide if that's true using a terminating procedure.

And so we arrive at our story. In Coq, equality is som…