A. Romanenko. Inversion and metacomputation. In Partial Evaluation and Semantics-Based Program Manipulation, pages 12--22. Sigplan Notices, 26(9), ACM, New York, September 1991. 52  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

.... inverse computation [16, 28, 50] The universal resolving algorithm outlined in this section uses methods from supercompilation, in particular driving [51] The idea for this algorithm appeared in the early seventies [50] and since then several variants were implemented for functional languages [3, 5, 41, 42]. Our algorithm performs inverse computation in TSG and is implemented in Gofer (321 lines of pretty printed source text) Algorithm 24 [URA (outline) Given TSG program pgm, class cls and output out, the algorithm starts by driving the initial configuration pgm cls and builds a potentially ....

....semantics as logic program [43] We have seen that this application is a particular instance of a more general scheme which is independent of a particular language paradigm. In this paper (and in earlier work [4] inverse computation was successfully ported to imperative languages using URA [50, 3, 5, 42], an algorithm for inverse computation in a functional language. The major problem of running programs interpretively is that each new level of interpretation multiplies the run time of the interpreted program by a significant factor. Much work has been done to reduce the costs of interpretation ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

A. Y. Romanenko, "Inversion and metacomputation," in Proceedings of the Symposium on Partial Evaluation and Semantics-Based Program Manipulation (ACM Press, 1991) pp. 12--22.

....the resulting grammar of EXP is sound. 7. RELATED WORK Program inversion In the literature, most program inversion is carried out by hand. One exception is Romanenko [9] who describes a pseudo algorithm for inverting a small class of programs written in Refal. In a later paper, Romanenko [10] extends the Refal language with non deterministic construct, akin to those seen in logic programming, to facilitate exhaustive search. He also considers inverting a program with respect to a subset of its parameters, so called partial inversion. We would like to extend our method to handle ....

Romanenko, A. Inversion and metacomputation. In Proceeding of the ACM SIGPLAN Syposium on Partial Evaluation and Semantics-Based Program Manipulation (New York, Sept. 1991), vol. 26(9) of ACM SIGPLAN Notices, ACM, ACM Press, pp. 12-22.

....tests, we could get: c [Paris] True c [Rome;Paris] True c x F alse There is an implementation of the supercompiler which returns this result. The relation of program specialization, theorem proving, and program inversion has been discussed more thoroughly in the context of metacomputation [Tur80b, Tur82, Abr91, Rom91, Glu94]. As one of the first examples of driving, it was shown that it is capable of inverting an algorithm for binary addition and perform binary subtraction [Tur72, Glu90] Non termination patterns We will close the comparison by showing the correspondence of non termination patterns encountered in ....

A. Y. Romanenko. Inversion and Metacomputation. In Symposium on Partial Evaluation and Semantics-Based Program Manipulation. (New Haven, Connecticut) . 12-22, ACM Press 1991.

....1972 by performing subtraction by inverse computation of binary addition [80] In 1973 S.A. Romanenko and later S.M. Abramov implemented an algorithm, Universal Resolving Algorithm (URA) in which driving was combined with a mechanical extraction of answers [1, 65] For program inversion see also [39, 41, 66, 93, 60]. In logic programming, one defines a predicate by a program P x y and solves the inversion problem for Z = True . Theorem proving and program transformation are indistinguishable in the approach outlined above; they are two applications of the same equivalence transformation. The definition ....

....computation of a program can always be performed using driving, but the performance can be poor whilst often more efficient inverse programs are known to exist. Figure 18 show how MST can be used to produce inverse programs by specialization of the universal resolving algorithm URA [1] see [66]. For notational convenience let Q x y z be defined by EQ P x y z . A specializer SPEC is used for the sake of generality, but it should be clear that a supercompiler SCP can be used instead. 1st MST Define a C expression (B0) by replacing X by x 0 in the A expression (A0) and apply URA to ....

A.Y. Romanenko. Inversion and metacomputation. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Partial Evaluation and Semantics-Based Program Manipulation. (Yale University, Connecticut), pages 12--22. ACM Press, 1991.

....eighties [22,24] From its very inception, supercompilation has been tied to a specific programming language, called Refal [24] Applications of supercom pilation include, among others, program specialization, program inversion and theorem proving. Other related aspects have been investigated in [1,7,8,13,14,17,18,26]. The notion of perfect process graphs and perfect driving were introduced in [22,23] The language S Graph is closely related to Turchin s Refal graphs [25] But due to SGraph s simpler data structure, untyped variables and only two elementary contractions, one may build rather clear and concise ....

Romanenko A. Yu., Inversion and metacomputation. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Partial Evaluation and Semantics-Based Program Manipulation. (Yale University, Connecticut). 12-22, ACM Press 1991.

....programs. Driving can be understood as a unification based function transformation mechanism, which uses some kind of evaluation machinery similar to (lazy) narrowing to build (possibly infinite) trees of states for a program with a given term. Turchin s papers use the following terminology [Rom91] generalized pattern matching stands for unification; contractions stand for narrowing substitutions and, very often in the texts, driving stands for the narrowing itself, i.e. the operation of instantiation of a function call for all possible value cases of the arguments, followed by ....

A. Romanenko. Inversion and metacomputation. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Partial Evaluation and Semantics-Based Program Manipulation, PEPM'91, pages 12--22, New York, 1991. ACM Press.

No context found.

A. Romanenko. Inversion and metacomputation. In Partial Evaluation and Semantics-Based Program Manipulation, pages 12--22. Sigplan Notices, 26(9), ACM, New York, September 1991. 52

No context found.

A. Y. Romanenko. Inversion and metacomputation. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Partial Evaluation and Semantics-Based Program Manipulation, 12--22. ACM Press, 1991.

No context found.

A.Yu. Romanenko. Inversion and metacomputation. Proceedings of the Symposium on Partial Evaluation and Semantics-Based Program Manipulation. 12--22 (ACM Press, 1991).

No context found.

A. Y. Romanenko, "Inversion and metacomputation", Proceedings of the Symposium on Partial Evaluation and Semantics-Based Program Manipulation, 12-22, ACM Press (1991).

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