| G.M. Bierman. A computational interpretation of the lambda-mu calculus. In MFCS'98, LNCS 1450, pages 336-345, 1998. |
....have a mismatch. While the aborts are essential in the reduction semantics, they are irrelevant in the corresponding proof. We are the rst to provide a proof theoretic justi cation for those abort steps, they correspond to the step c . In addition to Ong and Stewart, Py [Py98] and Bierman [Bie98] have pointed out the peculiarity of having an open term corresponding to a tautology. Their solution is to abolish the distinction between commands and terms. A command is a term returning . The body of a abstraction is not restricted to a command, but can be of the form :t, where t is of ....
G.M. Bierman. A computational interpretation of the lambda-mu calculus. In MFCS'98, LNCS 1450, pages 336-345, 1998.
....the proof and the failure of our initial brute force attempts. Indeed, the superficial similarity between some uses of continuations and exceptions seems to have confused several authors: purported macroencodings of exceptions in terms of syntactic sugar for callcc have appeared in the literature [2, 18]. In addition to showing the impossibility of macro encodings of one in terms of the other, we believe that the examples shed light on the nature of the difference between static and dynamic control. In particular, in the inequivalence for exceptions there are two functions which statically have ....
G. M. Bierman. A computational interpretation of the lambda-mu calculus. In Proceedings of Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science, number 1450 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1998.
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