190 lines
		
	
	
		
			8.4 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			Prolog
		
	
	
	
	
	
			
		
		
	
	
			190 lines
		
	
	
		
			8.4 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			Prolog
		
	
	
	
	
	
| /*************************************************************************
 | |
| *									 *
 | |
| *	 YAP Prolog 							 *
 | |
| *									 *
 | |
| *	Yap Prolog was developed at NCCUP - Universidade do Porto	 *
 | |
| *									 *
 | |
| * Copyright L.Damas, V.S.Costa and Universidade do Porto 1985-1997	 *
 | |
| *									 *
 | |
| **************************************************************************
 | |
| *									 *
 | |
| * File:		splay.yap						 *
 | |
| * Last rev:	5/12/99							 *
 | |
| * mods:									 *
 | |
| * comments:	Vijay Saraswat's implementation of Splay trees		 *
 | |
| *									 *
 | |
| *************************************************************************/
 | |
| 
 | |
| :- module(splay,[
 | |
| 	splay_access/5,
 | |
| 	splay_insert/4,
 | |
| 	splay_del/3,
 | |
| 	splay_init/1,
 | |
| 	splay_join/3,
 | |
| 	splay_split/5]).
 | |
| 
 | |
| % Date: Sun 22 Mar 87 03:40:22-EST
 | |
| % >From: vijay <Vijay.Saraswat@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
 | |
| % Subject: Splay trees in LP languages.
 | |
|  
 | |
| % There have hardly been any interesting programs in this Digest for a
 | |
| % long while now. Here is something which may stir the slothful among
 | |
| % you!  I present Prolog programs for implementing self-adjusting binary
 | |
| % search trees, using splaying. These programs should be among the most
 | |
| % efficient Prolog programs for maintaining binary search trees, with
 | |
| % dynamic insertion and deletion.
 | |
|  
 | |
| % The algorithm is taken from: "Self-adjusting Binary Search Trees",
 | |
| % D.D. Sleator and R.E. Tarjan, JACM, vol. 32, No.3, July 1985, p. 668.
 | |
| % (See Tarjan's Turing Award lecture in this month's CACM for a more
 | |
| % informal introduction).  
 | |
| % -----------------------------------------
 | |
|  
 | |
| % The operations provided by the program are:
 | |
|  
 | |
| % 1. access(i,t):  (implemented by the call access(V, I, T, New))
 | |
| %   "If item i is in tree t, return a pointer to its location;
 | |
| %   otherwise return a pointer to the null node."
 | |
| %   In our implementation, in the call access(V, I, T, New),
 | |
| %   V is unifies with `null' if the item is not there, else
 | |
| %   with  `true' if it is there, in which case I is also
 | |
| %   unified with that item.
 | |
|  
 | |
| % 2. insert(i,t):  (implemented by the call insert(I, T, New))
 | |
| %   "Insert item i in tree t, assuming that it is not there already."
 | |
| %   (In our implementation, i is not inserted if it is already
 | |
| %   there: rather it is unified with the item already in the tree.)
 | |
|  
 | |
| % 3. delete(i,t):  (implemented by the call del(I, T, New))
 | |
| %   "Delete item i from tree t, assuming that it is present."
 | |
| %   (In our implementation, the call fails if the item is not in
 | |
| %   the tree.)
 | |
|  
 | |
| % 4. join(t1,t2):  (Implemented by the call join(T1, T2, New))
 | |
| %    "Combine trees t1 and t2 into a single tree containing
 | |
| %     all items from both trees, and return the resulting
 | |
| %     tree. This operation assumes that all items in t1 are
 | |
| %     less than all those in t2 and destroys both t1 and t2."
 | |
|  
 | |
| % 5. split(i,t): (implemented by the call split(I, T, Left, Right))
 | |
| %    "Construct and return two trees t1 and t2, where t1
 | |
| %     contains all items in t less than i, and t2 contains all
 | |
| %     items in t greater than i. This operations destroys t."
 | |
|  
 | |
| % The basic workhorse is the routine bst(Op, Item, Tree, NewTree), which
 | |
| % returns in NewTree a binary search tree obtained by searching for Item
 | |
| % in Tree and splaying. OP controls what must happen if Item is not
 | |
| % found in the Tree.  If Op = access(V), then V is unified with null if
 | |
| % the item is not found in the tree, and with true if it is; in the
 | |
| % latter case Item is also unified with the item found in the tree. In
 | |
| % the first case, splaying is done at the node at which the discovery
 | |
| % was made that Item was not in the tree, and in the second case
 | |
| % splaying is done at the node at which Item is found. If Op=insert,
 | |
| % then Item is inserted in the tree if it is not found, and splaying is
 | |
| % done at the new node; if the item is found, then splaying is done at
 | |
| % the node at which it is found.
 | |
|  
 | |
| % A node is simply an n/3 structure: n(NodeValue, LeftSon, RightSon).
 | |
| % NodeValue could be as simple as an integer, or it could be a (Key,
 | |
| % Value) pair.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| % A node is simply an n/3 structure: n(NodeValue, LeftSon, RightSon).
 | |
| % NodeValue could be as simple as an integer, or it could be a (Key,
 | |
| % Value) pair.
 | |
|  
 | |
| % Here are the top-level axioms. The algorithm for del/3 is the first
 | |
| % algorithm mentioned in the JACM paper: namely, first access the
 | |
| % element to be deleted, thus bringing it to the root, and then join its
 | |
| % sons. (join/4 is discussed later.)
 | |
|  
 | |
| splay_access(V, Item, Val, Tree, NewTree):-
 | |
| 	bst(access(V), Item, Val, Tree, NewTree).
 | |
| splay_insert(Item, Val,Tree, NewTree):-
 | |
| 	bst(insert, Item, Val, Tree, NewTree).
 | |
| splay_del(Item, Tree, NewTree):-
 | |
| 	bst(access(true), Item, Val, Tree, n(Item, Val, Left, Right)),
 | |
| 	splay_join(Left, Right, NewTree).
 | |
| splay_join(Left, Right, New):-
 | |
| 	join(L-L, Left, Right, New).
 | |
| splay_split(Item, Val, Tree, Left, Right):-
 | |
| 	bst(access(true), Item, Val, Tree, n(Item, Val, Left, Right)).
 | |
| 
 | |
| % We now consider the definition of bst. We use the notion of
 | |
| % `difference-bsts'. There are two types of difference-bsts, a left one
 | |
| % and a right one. The left one is of the form T-L where T is a bst and
 | |
| % L is the *right* son of the node with the largest value in T. The
 | |
| % right one is of the form T-R where T is a binary search tree and R is
 | |
| % the *left* son of the node with the smallest value in T. An empty bst
 | |
| % is denoted by a variable. Hence L-L denotes the empty left (as well as
 | |
| % right) difference bst.
 | |
|  
 | |
| % As discussed in the JACM paper, we start with a notion of a left
 | |
| % fragment and a right fragment of the new bst to be constructed.
 | |
| % Intially, the two fragments are empty.
 | |
|  
 | |
| bst(Op, Item, Val, Tree, NewTree):-
 | |
| 	bst(Op, Item, Val, L-L, Tree, R-R, NewTree).
 | |
| 
 | |
| % We now consider the base cases. The empty tree is a variable: hence it
 | |
| % will unify with the atom null. (A non-empty tree is a n/3 structure,
 | |
| % which will not unify with null). If Item was being *access*ed, then it
 | |
| % was not found in the tree, and hence Null=null. On the other hand, if
 | |
| % the Item is found at the root, then the call terminates, with the New
 | |
| % Tree being set up appropriately.
 | |
|  
 | |
| % The base clauses are:
 | |
|  
 | |
| bst(access(Null), _Item, _, _L, null, _R, _Tree):- !, Null = null.
 | |
| bst(access(true), Item, Val, Left-A, n(Item0, Val0, A, B), Right-B, n(Item, Val, Left, Right)) :- Item == Item0, !, Val = Val0.
 | |
| bst(insert, Item, Val, Left-A, T, Right-B, n(Item0, Val, Left, Right)) :-
 | |
| 	(var(T) ; T = n(Item0, _Val0, A, B), Item == Item0), !, Item = Item0.
 | |
| % We now consider the zig case, namely that we have reached a node such
 | |
| % that the required Item is either to the left of the current node and
 | |
| % the current node is a leaf, or the required item is the left son of
 | |
| % the current node. Depending upon the Op, the appropriate action is
 | |
| % taken:
 | |
| bst(access(Null), Item, _, Left-L, n(X, VX, null, B), Right-B, n(X, VX, Left, Right)) :-
 | |
| 	Item @< X, !, Null = null.
 | |
| bst(Op, Item, Val, Left, n(X, VX, n(Item, Val, A1, A2), B), R-n(X, VX, NR,B), New):-
 | |
| 	Item @< X, !,
 | |
| 	bst(Op, Item, Val, Left, n(Item, Val, A1, A2), R-NR, New).
 | |
| % The recursive cases are straightforward:
 | |
| % Zig-Zig:
 | |
| bst(Op, Item, Val, Left, n(X, VX, n(Y, VY, Z, B), C), R-n(Y, VY, NR, n(X, VX, B, C)), New):-
 | |
| 	Item @< X, Item @< Y, !,
 | |
| 	bst(Op, Item, Val, Left, Z, R-NR, New).
 | |
| % Zig-Zag:
 | |
| bst(Op, Item, Val, L-n(Y, VY, A, NL), n(X, _VX, n(Y, VY, A, Z), C), R-n(X, _NX, NR, C), New):-
 | |
| 	Item @< X, Y @< Item,!,
 | |
| 	bst(Op, Item, Val, L-NL, Z, R-NR, New).
 | |
| % The symmetric cases for the right sons of the current node
 | |
| % are straightforward too:
 | |
| 
 | |
| % Zag
 | |
| bst(access(Null), Item, _, Left-B, n(X, VX, B, null), Right-_R, n(X, VX, Left, Right)):-
 | |
| 	X @< Item, !, Null = null.  % end of the road.
 | |
| bst(Op, Item, Val, L-n(X, VX, B, NL), n(X, VX, B, n(Item, Val, A1, A2)), Right, New):-
 | |
| 	X @< Item, !,
 | |
| 	bst(Op, Item, Val, L-NL, n(Item, Val, A1, A2), Right, New).
 | |
| % Zag-Zag
 | |
| bst(Op, Item, Val, L-n(Y, VY, n(X, VX, C, B), NL), n(X, VX, C, n(Y, VY, B, Z)), Right, New):-
 | |
| 	X @< Item, Y @<Item,!,
 | |
| 	bst(Op, Item, Val, L-NL, Z, Right, New).
 | |
| % Zag-Zig
 | |
| bst(Op, Item, Val, L-n(X, VX, A, NL), n(X, VX, A, n(Y, VY, Z, C)), R-n(Y, VY, NR, C), New):-
 | |
| 	X @< Item, Item @< Y,!,
 | |
| 	bst(Op, Item, Val, L-NL, Z, R-NR, New).
 | |
| 
 | |
| % We now consider the definition of join.  To join Left to Right, it is
 | |
| % sufficient to splay at the rightmost vertex in Left, and make Right
 | |
| % its Right son. To build NewTree, we initially start with an empty left
 | |
| join(Left-A, n(X, VX, A, var), Right, n(X, VX, Left, Right)):-!.
 | |
| join(Left-n(X, VX, A, B), n(X, VX, A, n(Y, VY, B, var)), Right,	n(Y, VY, Left, Right)):- !.
 | |
| join(Left-n(Y, VY, n(X, VX, C, B), NL), n(X, VX, C, n(Y, VY, B, n(Z, VZ, A1, A2))), Right, New):-
 | |
| 	join(Left-NL, n(Z, VZ,A1, A2), Right, New).
 | |
|  
 | |
| 
 | |
| splay_init(_).
 | |
| 
 |