- Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Joachim Schimpf <joachim.schimpf_at_...44...>

Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 14:57:05 +1000

Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 14:57:05 +1000

Igor Kondrasovas wrote: > Hello, > > Please let me rewrite a predicate that was erroneously copied while editing > the previous e-mail: > > solve((X1,Y1),(X2,Y2), [NFAB| NFBA]):- Your first mistake is here ^^^ This should be a comma because you want to make a list with 2 elements. With this fix you get: ?- solve((X1, Y1), (X2, Y2), [[[(0, 0), (0, 2)], [(0, 2), (2, 0)], [(2, 0), (0, 0)]], [[(0, 2), (2, 2)], [(2, 2), (2, 0)], [(2, 0), (0, 2)]]]), [X1, Y1, X2, Y2] :: -100 .. 100. X1 = X1{-100 .. 100} Y1 = Y1{-100 .. 100} X2 = X2{-100 .. 100} Y2 = Y2{-100 .. 100} There are 2 delayed goals. Yes (0.04s cpu) As is usually the case with constraint programming, propagation alone is not enough to find the actual solutions, and you need to add search, e.g. solve((X1,Y1),(X2,Y2), [NFAB, NFBA]):- outside_polygon1((X1,Y1), (X2,Y2), NFAB), outside_polygon1((X2,Y2), (X1,Y1), NFBA), search([X1,X2,Y1,Y2], 0, first_fail, indomain_split, complete, []). Now you can compute all solutions: ?- [X1, Y1, X2, Y2] :: -2 .. 2, solve((X1, Y1), (X2, Y2), [[[(0, 0), (0, 2)], [(0, 2), (2, 0)], [(2, 0), (0, 0)]], [[(0, 2), (2, 2)], [(2, 2), (2, 0)], [(2, 0), (0, 2)]]]). X1 = -2 Y1 = -2 X2 = -2 Y2 = -1 Yes (0.02s cpu, solution 1, maybe more) X1 = -2 Y1 = -2 X2 = -2 Y2 = 1 Yes (0.03s cpu, solution 2, maybe more) X1 = -2 Y1 = -2 X2 = -2 Y2 = 2 Yes (0.03s cpu, solution 3, maybe more) etc. > You can use as an example: > > solve((X1,Y1),(X2,Y2), > [[[(0,0),(0,2)],[(0,2),(2,0)],[(2,0),(0,0)]],[[(0,2),(2,2)],[(2,2),(2,0)],[( > 2,0),(0,2)]]]), [X1,Y1,X2,Y2] :: -100..100. As an general note, it is a good habit to use unique functors to identify your data structures, instead of simply using lists for everything. So instead of [(0,0),(0,2)] better use line((0,0),(0,2)) Instead of [ [(0,0),(0,2)], [(0,2),(2,0)], [(2,0),(0,0)] ] use polygon([ line((0,0),(0,2)), line((0,2),(2,0)), line((2,0),(0,0)) ]) With such an encoding, the initial bug would have been more obvious. I would probably also use point(X,Y) instead of (X,Y), but that's debatable. Note that (X,Y) is the same as ','(X,Y), but (X,Y,Z) is ','(X, ','(Y,Z)). -- JoachimReceived on Thu Apr 08 2010 - 04:55:44 CEST

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Wed Sep 25 2024 - 15:13:20 CEST
*