G. Ferrand and P. Deransart. An operational formal definition of Prolog. In Proceedings of the 4th Symposium on Logic Programming, pages 162--172. Computer Society Press, 1987.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

.... version of the append program and a version of the unify program of Sterling and Shapiro [SS86] We are aware of two other approaches to define the meaning of Prolog first order built in s, namely that of Borger [Bor89] based on so called dynamic algebras, and that of Deransart and 2 Ferrand [DF87] based on an abstract interpreter. Their aim is to provide semantics to the complete Prolog language whereas ours is to extend the declarative semantics to Prolog programs with first order built in s so that one can reason about such programs. In this respect our approach has the same aim as that ....

P. Deransart and G. Ferrand. An operational formal definition of Prolog. In Proceedings of the 4th Symposium on Logic Programming, pages 162--172. Computer Society Press, 1987. 37

....with first order built in s. We also show how termination proofs can be constructed in a modular way. We are aware of two other approaches to define the meaning of Prolog programs with builtin s, namely that of Borger [Bor89] based on so called dynamic algebras, and that of Deransart and Ferrand [DF87] based on an abstract interpreter. Their aim is to provide semantics for the complete Prolog language whereas ours is to extend the declarative semantics to Prolog programs with built in s so that one can reason about such programs. In this respect our approach has the same aim as that of Hill and ....

P. Deransart and G. Ferrand. An operational formal definition of Prolog. In Proceedings of the 4th Symposium on Logic Programming, pages 162--172. Computer Society Press, 1987.

....about the nested uses of findall, bagof or setof, did not explain the effect of cut on the disjunction ; etc. The desire to clarify these subtle points motivated research for a precise semantics of full Prolog and prompted the efforts to standardize the language. In Deransart and Ferrand [DF87] and Borger and Rosenzweig [BR94] rigorous semantics of large fragments of the language are provided. By now Prolog is standardized see ISO [ISO95] and Deransart et al. DEC96] Returning to program correctness, it should come as no surprise that verification of Prolog programs that use the ....

P. Deransart and G. Ferrand. An operational formal definition of Prolog. In International Symposium on Logic Programming, pages 162--172. IEEE Computer Society, San Francisco, CA, August 1987.

....semantics for Prolog with cut [dBdV89, Bor90, Bau92] including Billaud in his original paper [Bil90] Some of these approaches have proven equivalence with an operational semantics. These papers were based on earlier work in operational and denotational semantics of Prolog, including [JM84, DF87, AB87, DM88, NF89] This research essentially views a Prolog program as a function from goals to sequences of answer substitutions. We took a different view in our work [And90, And91] giving a proof theoretic characterization of the success and failure of Prolog goals not involving reified ....

....the presence of such features as depth first search, negation as failure and cut, SLD resolution based operational semantics require an additional superstructure of definitions, for instance to define the order in which branches of the SLD tree are searched. We therefore follow other researchers [DF87, Bil90] in defining operational semantics for our system using the style which has come to be known as SOS, or Structured Operational Semantics [Plo81] In Appendix A, we give rules for the operational semantics discussed in this paper. The rules are presented in groups, which (following [AC96] ....

P. Deransart and G. Ferrand. An operational formal definition of Prolog. Technical Report RR763, INRIA, 1987.

....that is, left to right processing. L attributed natural semantics definitions have a natural notion of sequential computation from left to right that resembles the computations done with a small step semantics or with a Prolog interpreter applied to the natural semantics rule schemes [4]. In addition, we can discuss the length of a computation. To gain divergent computations, we generate sets of positive (convergent) and negative (divergent) rules from the natural semantics rule schemes [3, 14, 13] and apply coinduction definition techniques to the negative rules. ....

....of research aims to show that static analysis of program modules can be performed with the same partial evaluation machinery used for complete programs. Of course, the intuition that a natural semantics derivation can be computed by a Prolog interpreter is a standard one. Deransart and Ferrand [4] give a careful formulation of how a goal tree can be computed by a Prolog interpretater in a left to right, incremental fashion. Gunter and Remy [6] adapt Prolog goal search to natural semantics definitions; they define a typed notation, RAVL, for their presentation and show how one might prove a ....

P. Deransart and G. Ferrand. An operational formal definition of PROLOG. In Proc. IEEE Symp. on Logic Programming, pages 162--172. IEEE Press, 1987.

....The most relevant previous work to consider is in the areas of semantics of depth first Prolog, semantics of negation, and unfolding semantics. 6.1 Depth First Prolog 6.1. 1 Metatheoretical and Denotational Approaches Setting aside presentations of operational semantics of depth first Prolog [Llo84, Vod85, DF87, Bor90, dBdV89, Bil90, Har90, And90, Bab91, McB91], most of the previous attempts to characterize depth first Prolog have been metatheoretic or denotational. Francez et al. FGKP85] build proof systems which reason about computations, and Barbuti et al. BCGL93] build a transformational semantics relying on the encoding of the termination theory ....

P. Deransart and G. Ferrand. An operational formal definition of Prolog. Technical Report RR763, INRIA, 1987.

.... the typed version of the append program and a version of the unify program of Sterling and Shapiro [SS86] We are aware of two other approaches to define the meaning of Prolog s built in s, namely that of Borger [Bor89] based on so called dynamic algebras, and that of Deransart and Ferrand [FD87] based on an abstract interpreter. Their aim is to provide semantics to the complete Prolog language whereas ours is to extend the declarative semantics to Prolog programs with built in s so that one can reason about such programs. 1.2 Preliminaries In what follows we study logic programs ....

G. Ferrand and P. Deransart. An operational formal definition of Prolog. In Proceedings of the 4th Symposium on Logic Programming, pages 162--172. Computer Society Press, 1987.

.... the typed version of the append program and a version of the unify program of Sterling and Shapiro [17] We are aware of two other approaches to define the meaning of Prolog first order builtin s, namely that of Borger [7] based on so called dynamic algebras, and that of Deransart and Ferrand [11] based on an abstract interpreter. Their aim is to provide semantics to the complete Prolog language whereas ours is to extend the declarative semantics to Prolog programs with first order built in s so that one can reason about such programs. In this respect our approach has the same aim as that ....

Deransart P., Ferrand G.: An operational formal definition of Prolog. In: Proceedings of the 4th Symposium on Logic Programming, 162-172. Computer Society Press (1987)

No context found.

G. Ferrand and P. Deransart. An operational formal definition of Prolog. In Proceedings of the 4th Symposium on Logic Programming, pages 162--172. Computer Society Press, 1987.

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