R. Lins, S. Thompson and S.L. Peyton Jones. On the equivalence between CMC and TIM. Journal of Functional Programming, 4(1), pp. 4763, 1992. Home/Search Document Details and Download
Summary Related Articles Check |
This paper is cited in the following contexts:
Décrire Et Comparer Les Implantations De Langages.. - Douence, Fradet (1996) (Correct)
....formelle de mises en oeuvre pour une classe (potentiellement large) de langages de programmation. Quel Dcrire et comparer les implantations de langages fonctionnels ques travaux explorent les relations entre deux machines abstraites comme la Tim et la G machine [4] 25] ou la CMCM et la Tim [21]. Le but est de montrer l quivalence entre des machines apparemment trs diffrentes. Mentionnons galement Asperti [2] qui fournit une comprhension catgorique de la machine de Krivine et d une Cam tendue. Enfin, diffrentes machines abstraites ont t prouves correctes et leur stratgie de rduction a t ....
R. Lins, S. Thompson and S.L. Peyton Jones. On the equivalence between CMC and TIM. Journal of Functional Programming, 4(1), pp. 4763, 1992.
A Systematic Study of Functional Language Implementations - Douence, Fradet (1998) (2 citations) (Correct)
....are precisely the common points and differences between two compilers Can a particular optimization, designed for machine A, be adapted to machine B One finds comparatively very few papers devoted to these questions. There have been studies of the relationship between two individual machines [37][43] but, to the best of our knowledge, no global approach to study implementations. 2 The goal of this paper is to fill this gap by introducing a unified framework to describe, relate, compare and classify functional language implementations. Our approach is to express the whole compilation ....
....have been compared. Some particular compilation steps have been studied. For example, 28] compare different abstraction algorithms and [26] expresses CPS transformations in the monadic framework. A few works explore the relationship between two abstract machines such as CMC and Tim [37] and Tim and the G machine [43] Their goal is to show the equivalence between seemingly very different implementations. CMC and Tim are compared by defining transformations between the states of the two machines. The comparison of Tim and the G machine is more informal but highlights the ....
R. Lins, S. Thompson and S.L. Peyton Jones. On the equivalence between CMC and TIM. Journal of Functional Programming, 4(1), pp. 47-63, 1992.
A Taxonomy of Functional Language Implementations Part I.. - Douence, Fradet (1996) (2 citations) (Correct)
....are precisely the common points and differences between two compilers Can a particular optimization, designed for machine A, be adapted to machine B One finds comparatively very few papers devoted to these questions. There have been studies of the relationship between two individual machines [26][22] but, to the best of our knowledge, no global approach to describe, classify and compare implementations. This paper presents an advance towards a general taxonomy of functional language implementations. Our approach is to express in a common framework the whole compilation process as a ....
....[31] or operational semantics [14] 28] They aim at providing a methodology to formally derive implementations for a (potentially large) class of programming languages. A few works explore the relationship between two abstract machines such as TIM and the G Machine [4] 26] and CMCM and TIM [22]. The goal is to show the equivalence between seemingly very different implementations. Also, let us mention Asperti [2] who provides a categorical understanding of the Krivine machine and an extended CAM. Our approach focuses on the description and comparison of fundamental options. The use of ....
R. Lins, S. Thompson and S.L. Peyton Jones. On the equivalence between CMC and TIM. Journal of Functional Programming, 4(1), pp. 47-63, 1992.
Towards a Taxonomy of Functional Language Implementations - Douence, Fradet (3 citations) (Correct)
....are precisely the common points and differences between two compilers Can a particular optimization, designed for machine A, be adapted to machine B One finds comparatively very few papers devoted to these questions. There have been studies of the relationship between two individual machines [25][21] but, to the best of our knowledge, no global approach to describe, classify and compare implementations. This paper presents an advance towards a general taxonomy of functional language implementations. Our approach is to express in a common framework the whole compilation process as a succession ....
....[30] or operational semantics [13] 27] Their goal is to provide a methodology to formally derive implementations for a (potentially large) class of programming languages. A few works explore the relationship between two abstract machines such as TIM and the G Machine [4] 25] and CMCM and TIM [21]. The goal is to show the equivalence between seemingly very different implementations. Also, let us mention Asperti [2] who provides a categorical understanding of the Krivine machine and an extended CAM. Our approach focuses on the description and comparison of fundamental options. The use of ....
R. Lins, S. Thompson and S.L. Peyton Jones. On the equivalence between CMC and TIM. Journal of Functional Programming, 4(1), pp. 47-63, 1992.
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