P. D. Mosses. Abstract semantic algebras! In Formal Description of Programming Concepts II, Proc. IFIP TC2 Working Conference, GarmischPartenkirchen, 1982.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....tracing requirements. OBJ has been used for many applications, including debugging algebraic specifications [77] rapid prototyping [69] defining programming languages in a way that directly yields an interpreter (see Appendix Section C. 2, as well as [79] and some elegant work of Peter Mosses [120, 121]) specifying software systems (e.g. the GKS graphics kernel system [28] an Ada configuration manager [40] the MacIntosh QuickDraw program [126] and OBJ itself [20] hardware specification, simulation, and verification (see [144] and Section 4.8) specification and verification of imperative ....

Peter Mosses. Abstract semantic algebras! In Dines Bjorner, editor, Formal Description of Programming Concepts II, pages 45--70. IFIP, 1983.

....(AST) 30 KB Table 2. Lines of program code to verify for a program checked IS front end 7 Related Work Correctness of compilers was first considered in [32] but focused on the compilation of arithmetic expressions. Thereafter most people explored the potential of denotational semantics, e.g. [13, 34, 35, 39, 40, 43, 49], or of refinement calculi, e.g. 5, 7, 9, 14, 15, 28, 33, 37] structural operational semantics, e.g. 16] and algebraic models, e.g. 44] Other approaches use abstract state machines, e.g. 6, 7, 9] Most of these projects did not compile into machine language. Instead, they designed ....

P. D. Mosses. Abstract semantic algebras. In D. Bjrner, editor, Formal description of programming concepts II, pages 63--88. IFIP IC-2 Working Conference, North Holland, 1982.

....it checks a stronger condition because the application condition may be state dependent) 9 Related Work Correctness of compilers was first considered in [37] but focused on the compilation of arithmetic expressions. Thereafter most people explored the potential of denotational semantics, e.g. [16, 41, 42, 45, 46, 49, 57], or of refinement calculi, e.g. 6, 4, 9, 17, 18, 34, 39, 44] structural operational semantics, e.g. 19] and algebraic models, e.g. 51] Other approaches use abstract state machines, e.g. 7, 4, 9] Most of these projects did not compile into machine language. Instead, they designed ....

P. D. Mosses. Abstract semantic algebras. In D. Bjrner, editor, Formal description of programming concepts II, pages 63--88. IFIP IC-2 Working Conference, North Holland, 1982.

.... or combinator is furthermore commutative (11) and idempotent (12) As an example application of these laws, the example actions (i) ii) above can be shown equal using laws (5) 2) 7) A catalogue of action laws for all facets of AN may be found in [22, App.B] In abstract semantic algebras [21], a precursor of AS, such laws served as an algebraic semantics of actions. However, establishing laws sufficient to define full action notation in this way doesn t seem feasible. 3 Reduction semantics Mason and Talcott operate on the basis of a reduction semantics for their language. A ....

P. D. Mosses. Abstract semantic algebras! In D. Bjrner, editor, Formal Description of Programming Concepts II. IFIP, 1983.

....So a pure categorical formulation was rejected in favour of a more general notion of semantic algebra analogous to a data type, but with operations being combinators and primitives corresponding somehow to fundamental concepts of programming languages. A series of papers on semantic algebras [33, 34, 35, 36] presented various sets of combinators, together with algebraic laws that they were supposed to obey, giving so called abstract semantic algebras. The elements of abstract semantic algebras were always intended to have a clear operational interpretation; they were referred to as actions starting ....

P. D. Mosses. Abstract semantic algebras! In Formal Description of Programming Concepts II, Proc. IFIP TC2 Working Conference, Garmisch-Partenkirchen,

....procedure. However, object code is executed and therefore the system software which produces the code, i.e. the compiler) must be correct. Techniques exist for the verification of compilers, but up until now they have only been applied to small source languages or idealistic machines, e.g. [9, 11, 12, 3, 5, 6, 14, 15, 1, 2, 4, 16]. For realistic programming languages and industrial development, compiler verification must be treated as a software engineering task. As in other applications compilers cannot be verified a posteriori ; verification must be dealt with throughout the whole construction process. Verification ....

P. D. Mosses. Abstract semantic algebras. In D. Bjrner, editor, Formal description of programming concepts II, pages 63--88. IFIP IC-2 Working Conference, North Holland, 1982.

....language descriptions have rather poor pragmatic qualities. It is hard to identify the essential semantic constructs of the programming language under consideration, and the (automatic) generation of compilers from the semantic description is virtually impossible. Action Semantics as developed by Mosses and Watt (1983; 1986) is an attempt to improve the readability and modularity of formal descriptions of programming languages. The semantic domain m is presented as the carrier of a g algebra ff, where the set of actions ff corresponds to the run time operations of the programming language in question. For our ....

Mosses, P. 1983. Abstract Semantic Algebras! In D. Bjrner (editor), Formal Description of Programming Concepts II, pp. 63--88, North-Holland.

.... The experimental OBJ systems implemented so far have been used for many applications, including debugging algebraic specifications [44] rapid prototyping [37] defining programming languages in a way that immediately yields an interpreter (see [45] and the elegant work of Peter Mosses [71, 72]) specifying software systems (e.g. the GKS graphics kernel system [18] an Ada configuration manager [23] the MacIntosh QuickDraw program [73] and OBJ in itself [16] and hardware specification, simulation and verification (see [32, 84] and Section 3.2) Many of these applications were ....

Peter Mosses. Abstract semantic algebras! In Dines Bjorner, editor, Formal Description of Programming Concepts II, pages 45--70. IFIP Press, 1983. 30

.... (1) is translated into a transformation rule: CMD;CMDS] fl) CMD] ffi [ CMDS] fl) 2) There are, however, semantic equations that are not compositional, eg: E[ E1 Gamma E2] E[ E1 ( GammaE2) 3) C[repeatC] C[ C] C[ repeatC] 4) As pointed out by Mosses in [Mos83] these equations can be easily replaced by compositional ones (in the former case by macro substitution, and in the latter case by the use of the fixedpoint operator) thus defining a translation from L s to calculus by structural induction. There are meta rules in the meta transformation process ....

Peter D. Mosses. "Abstract Semantic Algebras". In Formal Description of Programming Concepts --- II. North-Holland Publishing Company, 1983.

....by abstract state machines (Section 2) In this paper, the mapping of composite datatypes such as records, arrays etc. is considered as a front end task. The first work on correct compilers is [17] Most of the following work on correct compilation is based on denotational semantics (e.g.[4, 18, 19, 25, 26, 30]) or on refinement calculi (e.g. 5, 6, 16, 20, 21] Other work on compiler correctness based on refinement use abstract state machine (e.g. 1 3] Most of these works do not compile high level programming languages into assembler languages. To our knowledge, only [2, 3, 20, 21] and ProCos [16] ....

P. D. Mosses. Abstract semantic algebras. In D. Bjrner, editor, Formal description of programming concepts II, pages 63--88. IFIP IC-2 Working Conference, North Holland, 1982.

....particular mathematical model. In the early years, work within the area of the semantic description of programming languages by algebraic techniques (apart from the field of concurrency already mentioned see Section 4. 5) was mainly done by Mosses under the keyword of abstract semantic algebras [691]. Further work has been done by the ADJ group in the course of an attempt to provide a foundation for the application of algebraic specifications to compiler construction [899] by Wand in giving algebraic descriptions of functional languages [934] and by Broy and Wirsing, and also by Pepper, in ....

P. Mosses. Abstract semantic algebras. In Proc. IFIP TC2 Working Conf. on the Formal Description of Programming Concepts II. North-Holland, 1983.

....a superset of conventional lambda based metalanguages. The versatility of action notation makes the task of developing its semantic theory challenging but we believe that the result will be informative and useful. Originally, actions were specified algebraically as abstract semantic algebras (Mosses, 1983). In Section 6.4 we outlined how the operational theory for actions entails such algebraic action laws. It seems difficult to assess an algebraic semantics without the complementary operational formalisation of dynamic behaviour. Alternatively, one could consider a domain theoretic approach to the ....

Mosses, P. D. (1983). Abstract semantic algebras! In Formal Description of Programming Concepts II.

....unit, and is left absorbed by escape and fail. Laws (6) 8) are corresponding laws for trap. As an example application of these laws, the example actions (i) ii) above can be shown equal using laws (4) 2) 7) A catalogue of action laws for all facets of AN may be found in [16, App.B] In [15], a precursor of AS, such laws served as an algebraic semantics of actions. However, establishing laws sufficient to define full action notation in this way doesn t seem feasible. 3 Reduction semantics Mason and Talcott operate on the basis of a reduction semantics for their language. A ....

P. D. Mosses. Abstract semantic algebras! In D. Bjørner, editor, Formal Description of Programming Concepts II. IFIP, 1983.

....reasons why other methods to construct correct compilers fail to produce efficient machine code for real life processors. The first work on correct compilers is [McCarthy and Painter 1967] Most of the following work on correct compilation is based on denotational semantics (e.g. Paulson 1981, Mosses 1982, Wand 1984, Brown et al. 1992, Mosses 1992, Palsberg 1992] structural operational semantics (e.g. Diehl 1996] or on refinement e.g. Buth et al. 1992] Buth and Muller Olm 1993] Hoare et al. 1993] Muller Olm 1995] Muller Olm 1996] Borger and Rosenzweig 1992] Borger et al. 1994] ....

P. D. Mosses. Abstract semantic algebras. In D. Bjørner, editor, Formal description of programming concepts II, pages 63--88. IFIP IC-2 Working Conference, North Holland, 1982.

....a priori bounded numbers of the computational reals by the finite and a priori bounded numbers of the machine. The development of a sound understanding of the number systems starts with Wilkinson[36, 37] The concept of the Wilkinson set fits very nicely with the ideas of denotational semantics[4, 6, 25, 29, 31]. This development should be primarily algebraic in nature, adding a level to the traditional algebraic hierarchy. The constructive program might also shift in emphasis in development of numerical mathematics. For example, we can achieve some results by replacing limits with extrapolations. In ....

P. D. Mosses. Abstract semantic algebras. In D. Bjorner, editor, Formal Descriptions of Programming Concepts II. North-Holland, 1983.

....with expressions (MIS) and the translation to the DEC Alpha processor family. The operational semantics is formalized by abstract state machines (Section 2) The first work on correct compilers is [16] Most of the following work on correct compilation is based on denotational semantics (e.g.[4, 17, 18, 22, 23, 26]) or on refinement calculi (e.g. 5, 6, 15, 19] Other approaches on compiler correctness use abstract state machine (e.g. 2, 3, 1] Most of these works do not compile high level programming languages into assembler languages. To our knowledge, only [3, 1, 19] and ProCos [15] discus ....

P. D. Mosses. Abstract semantic algebras. In D. Bjørner, editor, Formal description of programming concepts II, pages 63--88. IFIP IC-2 Working Conference, North Holland, 1982.

....by some ideas in Z [3] OBJ has been used for many applications, including debugging algebraic specifications [61] rapid prototyping [53] defining programming languages in a way that directly yields an interpreter (see Appendix Section C. 2, as well as [62] and some elegant work of Peter Mosses [100, 101]) specifying software systems (e.g. the GKS graphics kernel system [20] an Ada configuration manager [32] the MacIntosh QuickDraw program [106] and OBJ itself [15] and hardware specification, simulation, and verification (see [120] and Section 4.8) some of these applications were done ....

Peter Mosses. Abstract semantic algebras! In Dines Bjorner, editor, Formal Description of Programming Concepts II, pages 45--70. IFIP, 1983.

No context found.

P. D. Mosses. Abstract semantic algebras! In Formal Description of Programming Concepts II, Proc. IFIP TC2 Working Conference, GarmischPartenkirchen, 1982.

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