| C. Laneve, J. Parrow, and B. Victor. Solo diagrams. In TACS 2001, LNCS 2215:127--144. http://www.docs.uu.se/ # victor/tr/solodiagrams.shtml 25 |
....and u x. It uses the reaction relation (#z) u u#y R) R# where every equivalence class generated by x = y has exactly one element not z, and the substitution # collapses each equivalence class to its one element. A single processor implementation of solos has been described [9]. However, it seems di#cult to make a distributed implementation. This is because its reaction is not local: the channel manager at u must look in the global environment to find su#cient names ( # z ) before it can allow reaction. Instead, we implement the solos calculus with the explicit ....
....replicated contexts. For instance, u u x. flat P ) Therefore, an optimising compiler can locally encode any part of a program, without needing to encode it all. The proof is substantial; it may be found in [18] Other encodings of replication are also possible, in the style of [13] or [9]. Theorem 13 If x[P ] takes n inter location messages to evolve to M # in the fusion machine with continuations, then x[flat P ] needs to take no more than 2n inter location messages in the machine without continuations to evolve to N # , such that M # N # . Proof sketch. First, annotate the ....
C. Laneve, J. Parrow, and B. Victor. Solo diagrams. In TACS 2001, LNCS 2215:127--144.
No context found.
C. Laneve, J. Parrow, and B. Victor. Solo diagrams. In TACS 2001, LNCS 2215:127--144.
No context found.
C. Laneve, J. Parrow, and B. Victor. Solo diagrams. In TACS 2001, LNCS 2215:127--144. http://www.docs.uu.se/ # victor/tr/solodiagrams.shtml 25
Online articles have much greater impact More about CiteSeer.IST Add search form to your site Submit documents Feedback
CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC