# On the unification free prolog programs

Invited Lectures

First Online:

## Abstract

We provide simple conditions which allow us to conclude that in case of several well-known Prolog programs the unification algorithm can be replaced by iterated matching. The main tools used here are types and generic expressions for types. As already noticed by other researchers, such a replacement offers a possibility of improving the efficiency of program's execution.

## Keywords

Logic Program Binary Tree Logic Programming Relation Symbol Output Position
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- [AFZ88]I. Attali and P. Franchi-Zannettacci. Unification-free execution of TYPOL programs by semantic attribute evaluation. In R.A. Kowalski and K.A. Bowen, editors,
*Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Logic Programming*, pages 160–177. The MIT Press, 1988.Google Scholar - [AP92]K. R. Apt and A. Pellegrini. Why the occur-check is not a problem. In M. Bruynooghe and M. Wirsing, editors,
*Proceeding of the Fourth International Symposium on Programming Language Implementation and Logic Programming (PULP 92)*, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 631, pages 69–86, Berlin, 1992. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar - [Apt90]K. R. Apt. Logic programming. In J. van Leeuwen, editor,
*Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science*, pages 493–574. Elsevier, 1990. Vol. B.Google Scholar - [BLR92]F. Bronsard, T.K. Lakshman, and U.S. Reddy. A framework of directionality for proving termination of logic programs. In K.R. Apt, editor,
*Proc. of the Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming*, pages 321–335. MIT Press, 1992.Google Scholar - [CP91]R. Chadha and D.A. Plaisted. Correctness of unification without occur check in Prolog. Technical report, Department of Computer Science, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C., 1991.Google Scholar
- [DM85a]P. Dembinski and J. Maluszynski. AND-parallelism with intelligent backtracking for annotated logic programs. In
*Proceedings of the International Symposium on Logic Programming*, pages 29–38, Boston, 1985.Google Scholar - [DM85b]P. Deransart and J. Maluszynski. Relating Logic Programs and Attribute Grammars.
*Journal of Logic Programming*, 2:119–156, 1985.Google Scholar - [Llo87]J. W. Lloyd.
*Foundations of Logic Programming*. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, second edition, 1987.Google Scholar - [LMM88]J.-L. Lassez, M. J. Maher, and K. Marriott. Unification Revisited. In J. Minker, editor,
*Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming*, pages 587–625. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, Ca., 1988.Google Scholar - [MK85]J. Maluszynski and H. J. Komorowski. Unification-free execution of logic programs. In
*Proceedings of the 1985 IEEE Symposium on Logic Programming*, pages 78–86, Boston, 1985. IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar - [Red86]U.S. Reddy. On the relationship between logic and functional languages. In D. DeGroot and G. Lindstrom, editors,
*Functional and Logic Programming*, pages 3–36. Prentice-Hall, 1986.Google Scholar - [Ros91]D.A. Rosenblueth. Using program transformation to obtain methods for eliminating backtracking in fixed-mode logic programs. Technical Report 7, Universidad National Autonoma de Mexico, Instituto de Investigaciones en Matematicas Aplicadas y en Sistemas, 1991.Google Scholar
- [SS86]L. Sterling and E. Shapiro.
*The Art of Prolog*. MIT Press, 1986.Google Scholar - [YFS92]E. Yardeni, T. Frühwirth, and E. Shapiro. Polymorphically typed logic programs. In F. Pfenning, editor,
*Types in Logic Programming*, pages 63–90. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachussets, 1992.Google Scholar

## Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993