In my previous answer to the recent question "Prolog binary search tree test - unwanted parents' parent node comparison", I proposed mixing lazy_chain/2
which uses prolog-coroutining ...
:- use_module(library(clpfd)). lazy_chain(Zs, R_2) :- ( var(R_2) -> instantiation_error(R_2) ; clpfd:chain_relation(R_2) -> freeze(Zs, lazy_chain_aux(Zs,R_2)) ; otherwise -> domain_error(chain_relation, R_2) ). lazy_chain_aux([], _). lazy_chain_aux([Z0|Zs], R_2) :- freeze(Zs, lazy_chain_aux_(Zs,R_2,Z0)). lazy_chain_aux_([], _, _). lazy_chain_aux_([Z1|Zs], R_2, Z0) :- call(R_2, Z0, Z1), freeze(Zs, lazy_chain_aux_(Zs,R_2,Z1)).
... together with dcg in_order//1
...
in_order(nil) --> []. in_order(node(X,L,R)) --> in_order(L), [X], in_order(R).
... like so:
?- lazy_chain(Zs, #<), phrase(in_order(node(1,nil,nil)), Zs). Zs = [1,23].
Is there a easy way to "push" lazy_chain
into phrase/3
so that its scope is limited to the part of the sequence described by in_order//1
?
Right now, I get ...
?- lazy_chain(Zs, #<), phrase(in_order(node(1,nil,nil)), Zs0,Zs). Zs0 = [1|Zs], freeze(Zs, lazy_chain_aux(Zs,#<)).
... which (of course) can fail upon further instantiation of Zs
:
?- lazy_chain(Zs, #<), phrase(in_order(node(1,nil,nil)), Zs0,Zs), Zs = [3,2,1]. false.
How can I work around that and constrain lazy_chain
to the part of the list-difference?
In the meantime I came up with the following hack:
lazy_chain_upto(R_2, P_2, Xs0, Xs) :-
( var(R_2) -> instantiation_error(R_2)
; clpfd:chain_relation(R_2) -> when((nonvar(Xs0) ; ?=(Xs0,Xs)),
lazy_chain_upto_aux(Xs0,Xs,R_2)),
phrase(P_2, Xs0, Xs)
; otherwise -> domain_error(chain_relation, R_2)
).
lazy_chain_upto_aux(Xs0, Xs, _) :-
Xs0 == Xs,
!.
lazy_chain_upto_aux([], _, _).
lazy_chain_upto_aux([X|Xs0], Xs, R_2) :-
when((nonvar(Xs0) ; ?=(Xs0,Xs)), lazy_chain_upto_prev_aux(Xs0,Xs,R_2,X)).
lazy_chain_upto_prev_aux(Xs0, Xs, _, _) :-
Xs0 == Xs,
!.
lazy_chain_upto_prev_aux([], _, _, _).
lazy_chain_upto_prev_aux([B|Xs0], Xs, R_2, A) :-
call(R_2, A, B),
when((nonvar(Xs0) ; ?=(Xs0,Xs)), lazy_chain_upto_prev_aux(Xs0,Xs,R_2,B)).
Based on this we could define in_orderX//1
like this:
in_orderX(T) --> lazy_chain_upto(#<, in_order(T)).
The sample query shown in the question ...
?- phrase(in_orderX(node(1,nil,nil)), Zs0,Zs), Zs = [3,2,1].
Zs0 = [1,3,2,1], Zs = [3,2,1].
... now checks out alright, but still I wonder: is it worth it?