| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Constraint Handling Rules article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
|
As I understood it, CHRs are interesting mainly because confluence is decidable (which is what sets them apart from general logic programming and term rewriting systems). Is this the case? If so, I guess that article ought to mention this, although I don't feel qualified to write the material... Megacz ( talk) 20:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Confluence is decidable if the program is terminating (because critical pairs are computable [ Confluence and Semantics of Constraint Simplification Rules]). Some details for the (undecidable) general case in [ On Confluence of Non-terminating CHR Program]. 88.174.104.199 ( talk) 20:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the article means by "executed in a committed-choice manner", and I know a fair amount about Prolog, to which CHR is being compared in the early part of the article. Hardmath ( talk) 14:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hardmath: committed-choice means "no backtracking". When Prolog finds a choice point, it records it, tries one of the options and backtracks to the choice point for further exploration upon failure. When CHR finds a choice point (multiple rules that can match the constraint store), it makes a choice and sticks with it. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 17:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Constraint Handling Rules article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
|
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
|
As I understood it, CHRs are interesting mainly because confluence is decidable (which is what sets them apart from general logic programming and term rewriting systems). Is this the case? If so, I guess that article ought to mention this, although I don't feel qualified to write the material... Megacz ( talk) 20:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Confluence is decidable if the program is terminating (because critical pairs are computable [ Confluence and Semantics of Constraint Simplification Rules]). Some details for the (undecidable) general case in [ On Confluence of Non-terminating CHR Program]. 88.174.104.199 ( talk) 20:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the article means by "executed in a committed-choice manner", and I know a fair amount about Prolog, to which CHR is being compared in the early part of the article. Hardmath ( talk) 14:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hardmath: committed-choice means "no backtracking". When Prolog finds a choice point, it records it, tries one of the options and backtracks to the choice point for further exploration upon failure. When CHR finds a choice point (multiple rules that can match the constraint store), it makes a choice and sticks with it. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 17:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)