4 ms·
I read in several places (that I don't remember unfortunately) that prolog experts discouraged the use of SWI clpqr because it contained major mistakes. Does an
by rscho 8y ago
I read in several places (that I don't remember unfortunately) that prolog experts discouraged the use of SWI clpqr because it contained major mistakes. Does anyone know if it is still the case and if clpfd suffers from the same issues?
- tom_mellior 8y agoI doubt that, but it's hard to tell as this is kind of vague. CLP(FD) talks about integers, CLP(Q) and CLP(R) talk about rationals and reals, respectively. If you approximate rationals or reals with floating point, you will get into situations where you compute nonsense, so in that sense at least CLP(R) has issues, but that kind of issue would have nothing to do with CLP(FD).
- rscho 8y agohttps://github.com/SWI-Prolog/packages-clpqr/issues/4 https://github.com/SWI-Prolog/packages-clpqr/issues/4 Also cited at https://www.metalevel.at/swissues https://www.metalevel.at/swissues I also read it on SO, but can't find it. I do however remember that it was said that the SWI lib was ported from the SICSTUS one, and that mistakes were added in the process, and that it couldn't be recommended for that reason.
- 0db532a0 8y agoOut of interest, do you know whether there are any problems with the SICStus version, and is there anything wrong with using SICStus over SWI?
- rscho 8y agoIt was stated that the SICSTUS version was correct, but I am no expert. To my knowledge, SICSTUS is the prolog Rolls-Royce, so there's certainly nothing wrong with that.
- 0db532a0 8y agoSeems like I was looking for CLPQR with logical constraints, which doesn't seem to exist.
- rscho 8y agoIf you want to do constraints, I'd argue that ECLiPSE prolog is probably best. You can also use a variety of solvers from it.