Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The narrowing-driven approach to functional logic program specialization

  • Special Feature
  • Published:
New Generation Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Partial evaluation is a semantics-based program optimization technique which has been investigated within different programming paradigms and applied to a wide variety of languages. Recently, a partial evaluation framework for functional logic programs has been proposed. In this framework, narrowing—the standard operational semantics of integrated languages—is used to drive the partial evaluation process. This paper surveys the essentials of narrowing-driven partial evaluation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abramov, S. and Glück, R., “The Universal Resolving Algorithm: Inverse Computation in a Functional Language,” inProc. of the 5th Int’l Conf. on Mathematics of Program Construction, Springer LNCS 1837, pp. 187–212, 2000.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Albert, E., “Partial Evaluation of Multi-Paradigm Declarative Languages: Foundations, Control, Algorithms and Efficiency,” Ph.D. thesis, DSIC, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, 2001. Available from URL: http://www.dsic.upv.es/users/elp/papers.html.

  3. Albert, E., Alpuente, M., Falaschi, M., Julián, P. and Vidal, G., “Improving Control in Functional Logic Program Specialization,” inProc. of the 5th Int’l Static Analysis Symposium (SAS’98), Springer LNCS 1503, pp. 262–277, 1998.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Albert, E., Alpuente, M., Hanus, M. and Vidal, G., “A Partial Evaluation Framework for Curry Programs,” inProc. of the 6th Int’l Conf. on Logic Programming and Automated Reasoning (LPAR’99), Springer LNAI 1705, pp. 376–395, 1999.

  5. Albert, E., Antoy, S. and Vidal, G., “Measuring the Effectiveness of Partial Evaluation in Functional Logic Languages,” inProc. of the 10th Int’l Workshop on Logic-Based Program Synthesis and Transformation (LOPSTR’2000), Springer LNCS 2042, pp. 103–124, 2001.

  6. Albert, E., Hanus, M. and Vidal, G., “Using an Abstract Representation to Specialize Functional Logic Programs,” inProc. of the 7th Int’l Conf. on Logic for Programming and Automated Reasoning (LPAR’2000), Springer LNAI 1955, pp. 381–398, 2000.

  7. Albert, E., Hanus, M. and Vidal, G., “A Practical Partial Evaluator, for a Multi-Paradigm Declarative Language,” inProc. of the 4th Fuji Int’l Symp. on Functional and Logic Programming (FLOPS’2001), Springer LNCS 2024, pp. 326–342, 2001.

  8. Alpuente, M., Falaschi, M., Julián, P. and Vidal, G., “Specialization of Lazy Functional Logic Programs,” inProc. of the ACM SIGPLAN Symp. on Partial Evaluation and Semantics-Based Program Manipulation (PEPM’97) Sigplan Notices, 32, 12, ACM Press, pp. 151–162, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Alpuente, M., Falaschi, M. and Vidal, G., “Narrowing-driven Partial Evaluation of Functional Logic Programs,” inProc. of the 6th European Symposium on Programming (ESOP’96), Springer LNCS 1058, pp. 45–61, 1996.

  10. Alpuente, M., Falaschi, M. and Vidal, G., “Partial Evaluation of Functional Logic Programs,”ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 20, 4, pp. 768–844, 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Alpuente M., Hanus M., Lucas S. and Vidal, G., “Specialization of Inductively Sequential Functional Logic Programs,” inProc. of the 4th ACM SIGPLAN Int’l Conf. on Functional Programming (ICFP’99), 34, 9 ofSigplan Notices, ACM Press, pp. 273–283, 1999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Antoy, S., “Definitional Trees,” inProc. of the 3rd Int’l Conf. on Algebraic and Logic Programming (ALP’92), Springer LNCS 632, pp. 143–157, 1992.

  13. Antoy, S., Echahed, R. and Hanus, M., “A Needed Narrowing Strategy,”Journal of the ACM, 47, 4, pp. 776–822, 2000.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Baader, F. and Nipkow, T.,Term Rewriting and All That, Cambridge University Press, 1998.

  15. Bol, R., “Loop Checking in Partial Deduction,”Journal of Logic Programming, 16, 1&2, pp. 25–46, 1993.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Bondorf, A., “A Self-Applicable Partial Evaluator for Term Rewriting Systems,” inProc. of the Int’l Joint Conf. on Theory and Practice of Software Development (TAP-SOFT’89), Springer LNCS 352, pp. 81–95, 1989.

  17. Bruynooghe, M., de Schreye, D. and Martens, B., “A General Criterion for Avoiding Infinite Unfolding,”New Generation Computing, 11, 1, pp. 47–79, 1992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Burstall, R. and Darlington, J., “A Transformation System for Developing Recursive Programs,”Journal of the ACM, 24, 1, pp. 44–67, 1977.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Consel, C. and Danvy, O., “Tutorial Notes on Partial Evaluation,” inProc. of the 20th Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL’93), ACM Press, pp. 493–501, 1993.

  20. Darlington, J. and Pull, H., “A Program Development Methodology Based on a Unified Approach to Execution and Transformation,” inProc. of the IFIP TC2 Workshop on Partial Evaluation and Mixed Computation, North-Holland, pp. 117–131, 1988.

  21. De Schreye, D., Glück, R., Jørgensen, J., Leuschel, M., Martens, B. and Sørensen, M., “Conjunctive Partial Deduction: Foundations, Control, Algorihtms, and Experiments,”Journal of Logic Programming, 41, 2&3, pp. 231–277, 1999.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Etalle, S., Gabbrielli, M. and Marchiori, E., “A Transformation System for CLP with Dynamic Scheduling and CCP,” inProc. of the ACM SIGPLAN Symp. on Partial Evaluation and Semantics-Based Program Manipulation (PEPM’97), volume 32, 12 ofSigplan Notices, ACM Press, pp. 137–150, 1997.

  23. Fribourg, L., “SLOG: A Logic Programming Language Interpreter Based on Clausal Superposition and Rewriting,” inProc. of the 2nd IEEE Int’l Symp. on Logic Programming, IEEE Press, pp. 172–185, 1985.

  24. Futamura, Y., “Partial Evaluation of Computation Process—An Approach to a Compiler-Compiler,”Higher-Order and Symbolic Computation, 12, 4, pp. 381–391, 1999. Reprint of article inSystems, Computers, Controls 1971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gallagher, J., “Tutorial on Specialisation of Logic Programs,” inProc. of the ACM SIGPLAN Symp. on Partial Evaluation and Semantics-Based Program Manipulation (PEPM’93), pp. 88–98, ACM Press, 1993.

  26. Giovannetti, E., Levi, G., Moiso, C. and Palamidessi, C., “Kernel Leaf: A Logic plus Functional Language,”Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 42, pp. 363–377, 1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Glück, R. and Klimov, A., “Occam’s Razor in Metacomputation: the Notion of a Perfect Process Tree,” inProc. of the 3rd Int’l Workshop on Static Analysis, Springer LNCS 724, pp. 112–123, 1993.

  28. Glück, R. and Sørensen, M., “Partial Deduction and Driving are Equivalent,” inProc. of the 6th Int’l Symp. on Programming Language Implementation and Logic Programming (PLILP’94), Springer LNCS 844, pp. 165–181, 1994.

  29. Hanus, M., “The Integration of Functions into Logic Programming: From Theory to Practice,”Journal of Logic Programming, 19&20, pp. 583–628, 1994.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Hanus, M., “A Unified Computation Model for Functional and Logic Programming,” inProc. of 24th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL’97), ACM Press, pp. 80–93, 1997.

  31. Hanus, M., Antoy, S., Koj, J., Sadre, R. and Steiner, F., “PAKCS 1.2: The Portland Aachen Kiel Curry System User Manual,” Technical report, University of Kiel, Germany, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hanus, M. and Prehofer, C., “Higher-Order Narrowing with Definitional Trees,”Journal of Functional Programming, 9, 1, pp. 33–75, 1999.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  33. “Curry: An Integrated Functional Logic Language,” (Hanus, M., ed.) Available at http://www.informatik.uni-kiel.de/~curry/report.html, 2000.

  34. Hortalá-González, T. and Ullán, E., “An Abstract Machine Based System for a Lazy Narrowing Calculus,” inProc. of the 4th Fuji Int’l Symp. on Functional and Logic Programming (FLOPS’2001), pp. 216–232, Springer LNCS 2024, 2001.

  35. Huet, G. and Lévy, J., “Computations in Orthogonal Rewriting Systems, Part I+II,”, inComputational Logic—Essays in Honor of Alan Robinson (J. Lassez and G. Plotkin, eds.), pp. 395–443, 1992.

  36. Hullot, J., “Canonical Forms and Unification,” inProc. of the 5th Int’l Conf. on Automated Deduction, Springer LNCS 87, pp. 318–334, 1980.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  37. Jones, N., Sestoft, P. and Søndergaard, H., “Mix: A Self-Applicable Partial Evaluator for Experiments in Compiler Generation,”Lisp and Symbolic Computation, 2, 1, pp. 9–50, 1989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Julián-Iranzo, P.,Specialization of Lazy Functional Logic Programs, Ph.D. thesis, DSIC, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia May 2000. In Spanish.

  39. Klop, J., “Term Rewriting Systems,” inHandbook of Logic in Computer Science (S. Abramsky, D. Gabbay, and T. Maibaum, eds.), I, Oxford University Press, pp. 1–112, 1992.

  40. Kruskal, J., “Well-quasi-ordering, the Tree Theorem, and Vazsonyi’s Conjecture,”Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 95, pp. 210–225, 1960.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  41. Lafave, L. and Gallagher, J., “Partial Evaluation of Functional Logic Programs in Rewriting-based Languages,” Technical Report CSTR-97-001, Department of Computer Science, University of Bristol, England, March 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Lassez, J.L., Maher, M.J. and Marriott, K., “Unification Revisited,” inFoundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming (J. Minker, ed.), Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, Ca., pp. 587–625, 1988.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  43. Leuschel, M., “On the Power of Homeomorphic Embedding for Online Termination,” inProc. of the 5th Int’l Static Analysis Symposium (SAS’98), Springer LNCS 1503, pp. 230–245, 1998.

  44. Leuschel, M., de Schreye, D. and de Waal, A., “A Conceptual Embedding of Folding into Partial Deduction: Towards a Maximal Integration,” inProc. of the 1996 Joint Int’l Conf. and Symp. on Logic Programming, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 319–332, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Leuschel, M., Martens, B. and de Schreye, D., “Controlling Generalization and Polyvariance in Partial Deduction of Normal Logic Programs”,ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 20, 1, pp. 208–258., 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Lloyd, J. and Shepherdson, J., “Partial Evaluation in Logic Programming”,Journal of Logic Programming, 11, pp. 217–242, 1991.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  47. Loogen, R., López-Fraguas, F. and Rodríguez-Artalejo, M., “A Demand Driven Computation Strategy for Lazy Narrowing”, inProc. of the 5th Int’l Symp. on Programming Language Implementation and Logic Programming (PLILP’93), Springer LNCS 714, pp. 184–200, 1993.

  48. López-Fraguas, F. and Sánchez-Hernández, J., “TOY: A Multiparadigm Declarative System,” inProc. of the 10th Int’l Conf. on Rewriting Techniques and Applications (RTA’ 99), Springer LNCS 1631, pp. 244–247, 1999.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  49. Lux, W. and Kuchen, H., “An Efficient Abstract Machine for Curry,” inProc. of the 8th Int’l Workshop on Functional and Logic Programming (WFLP’99), pp. 171–181, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Martens, B. and Gallagher, J., “Ensuring Global Termination of Partial Deduction while Allowing Flexible Polyvariance,” inProc. of the 12th Int’l Conf. on Logic Programming (ICLP’95), The MIT Press, pp. 597–611, 1995.

  51. Moreno-Navarro, J. and Rodríguez-Artalejo, M., “Logic Programming with Functions and Predicates: The Language Babel,”Journal of Logic Programming, 12, 3, pp. 191–224, 1992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Nemytykh, A., Pinchuk, V. and Turchin, V., “A Self-Applicable Supercompiler,” inPartial Evaluation, Proceedings, Springer LNCS 1110, pp. 322–337, 1996.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  53. Pettorossi, A. and Proietti, M., “A Comparative Revisitation of Some Program Transformation Techniques”, inPartial Evaluation. Proceedings, Springer LNCS 1110, pp. 355–385, 1996.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  54. Plasmeijer, R. and Eekelen, M.,Functional Programming and Parallel Graph Rewriting, Addison Wesley, 1993.

  55. Reddy, U.S., “Narrowing as the Operational Semantics of Functional Languages,” inProc. of the 2nd IEEE Int’l Symp. on Logic Programmin, IEEE, New York, pp. 138–151, 1985.

  56. Slagle, J., “Automated Theorem-Proving for Theories with Simplifiers, Commutativity and Associativity,”Journal of the ACM, 21, 4, pp. 622–642, 1974.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  57. Sørensen, M., “Turchin’s Supercompiler Revisited: An Operational Theory of Positive Information Propagation,” Technical Report 94/7, Master’s Thesis, DIKU, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Sørensen, M. and Glück, R., “An Algorithm of Generalization in Positive Supercompilation,” inProc. of the 1995 Int’l Logic Programming Symposium (ILPS’95), The MIT Press, pp. 465–479, 1995.

  59. Sørensen, M., Glück, R. and Jones, N., “A Positive Supercompiler,”Journal of Functional Programming, 6, 6, pp. 811–838, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Turchin, V., “The Concept of a Supercompiler,”ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 8, 3, pp. 292–325, July 1986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Vidal, G.,Semantics-Based Analysis and Transformation of Functional Logic Programs, Ph.D. thesis, DSIC, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Sept. 1996. In Spanish.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, DSIC, Camino de Vera s/n, E-46022, Valencia, Spain

    Elvira Albert & German Vidal

Authors
  1. Elvira Albert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. German Vidal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Elvira Albert, Ph.D.: She is an associate professor in Computer Science at the Technical University of Valencia, Spain. She received her bachelors degree in computer science in 1998 and her Ph.D. in computer science in 2001, both from the Technical University of Valencia. She has investigated on program optimization and on partial evaluation for declarative multi-paradigm programming languages. Her current research interests include term rewriting, multi-paradigm declarative programming, and formal methods, in particular semantics-based program analysis, transformation, specification, verification, and debugging.

Germán Vidal, Ph.D.: He is an associate professor in Computer Science at the Technical University of Valencia, Spain. He obtained his bachelors degree in computer science in 1992 and his Ph.D. in computer science in 1996, both from the Technical University of Valencia. He is active on several research topics in Functional Logic Programming. He has worked on compositionality, on abstract interpretation, and on program transformation techniques for functional logic programs. Currently, his research interests include declarative multi-paradigm programming languages, term rewriting, and semantics-based program manipulation, in particular partial evaluation.

About this article

Cite this article

Albert, E., Vidal, G. The narrowing-driven approach to functional logic program specialization. NGCO 20, 3–26 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03037257

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03037257

Keywords

Search

Navigation