M. Day, R. Gruber, B. Liskov, and A. C. Myers. Subtypes vs. where clauses: Constraining parametric polymorphism. In OOPSLA, pages 156--158, 1995.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....first formal owner is special: it owns the corresponding object; the other owners propagate the ownership information. Methods can also declare an additional list of formal owner parameters. Each time new formals are introduced, programmers can specify constraints between them using where clauses [24]. The constraints have the form o 1 owns o2 (i.e. o1 o2 ) and o 1 outlives o2 (i.e. o1 o2 ) Each formal has an owner kind. There is a subkinding relation between owner kinds, resulting in the kind hierarchy from the upper half of Figure 4. The hierarchy is rooted in Owner, that has ....

M. Day, R. Gruber, B. Liskov, and A. C. Myers. Subtypes vs. where clauses: Constraining parametric polymorphism. In Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA), October 1995.

....o er both increased expressiveness and a safe type system. An example of this impact is the language Strongtalk [BG93] which has adopted essentially the typing rules for our earlier language TOOPLE [Bru94] along with a few extensions) to type check a subset of Smalltalk. The language Theta [DGLM95] was developed independently of this work, but shares many of the features of PolyTOIL. In particular it supports a mechanism for constraining polymorphism that is equivalent to our use of bounded matching. The authors also argue that this mechanism is more useful than bounds on type parameters ....

Mark Day, Robert Gruber, Barbara Liskov, and Andrew C. Meyers. Subtypes vs. where clauses: Constraining parametric polymorphism. In Proc. ACM Symp. on ObjectOriented Programming: Systems, Languages, and Applications, pages 156-168, 1995.

....rst formal owner is special: it owns the corresponding object; the other owners propagate the ownership information. Methods can also declare an additional list of formal owner parameters. Each time new formals are introduced, programmers can specify constraints between them using where clauses [24]. The constraints have the form o1 owns o2 (i.e. o1 o o2 ) and o1 outlives o2 (i.e. o1 o2 ) Each formal has an owner kind. There is a subkinding relation between owner kinds, resulting in the kind hierarchy from the upper half of Figure 4. The hierarchy is rooted in Owner, that has two ....

M. Day, R. Gruber, B. Liskov, and A. C. Myers. Subtypes vs. where clauses: Constraining parametric polymorphism. In Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA), October 1995.

....first formal owner is special: it owns the this object; the other owners propagate the ownership information. If necessary, methods can declare an additional list of formal owner parameters. Each time new formals are introduced, programmers can specify constraints between them using where clauses [19]. The constraints have the form o 1 owns o2 (i.e. o1 o2 ) and o 1 outlives o2 (i.e. o1 o2 ) Each formal has an owner kind. There is a subkinding relation between owner kinds, resulting in the kind hierarchy from the upper half of Figure 4. The hierarchy is rooted in Owner, that has ....

M. Day, R. Gruber, B. Liskov, and A. C. Myers. Subtypes vs. where clauses: Constraining parametric polymorphism. In Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA), October 1995.

....verifies that whenever a thread holds more than one lock, the thread acquires the locks in the descending order. Our type system allows programmers to write code that is polymorphic in lock levels. Programmers can specify a partial order among formal lock level parameters using where clauses [17, 41]. Our system also allows programmers to use recursive treebased data structures to further order the locks within a given lock level. For example, programmers can specify that nodes in a tree must be locked in the tree order. Our system allows mutations to the data structure that change the ....

....needed in practice. Our approach permits separate compilation. Lock Level Polymorphism: Our type system allows programmers write code that is polymorphic in lock levels. Our system also allows programmers to specify a partial order among formal lock level parameters using where clauses [17, 41]. This feature enables programmers to write code in which the exact levels of some locks are not known statically, but only some ordering constraints among the unknown lock levels are known statically. Support for Condition Variables: In addition to mutual exclusion locks, our type system ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

M. Day, R. Gruber, B. Liskov, and A. C. Myers. Subtypes vs. where clauses: Constraining parametric polymorphism. In Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA), October 1995.

....lock, the thread acquires the locks in the descending order. Our type system allows programmers to write code that is polymorphic in lock levels. Programmers can specify a partial order among formal lock level parameters using where clauses. This is somewhat similar to the use of where clauses in [11, 24]. Our system also allows programmers to use recursive treebased data structures to further order the locks that belong to the same lock level. For example, programmers can specify that nodes in a tree must be locked in the tree order. Our system allows mutations to the data structure that change ....

....constraints among the unknown lock levels are known statically. Our system uses lock level polymorphism to support this kind of programming. Programmers can specify a partial order among formal lock level parameters using where clauses. This is somewhat similar to the use of where clauses in [11, 24]. Support for Condition Variables: In addition to mutual exclusion locks, our type system prevents deadlocks in the presence of condition variables. Our system statically enforces the constraint that a thread can invoke e.wait only if the thread holds no locks other than the lock on e. Since a ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

M. Day, R. Gruber, B. Liskov, and A. C. Myers. Subtypes vs. where clauses: Constraining parametric polymorphism. In Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA), October 1995.

....Unlike an interface, however, a user type does not need to explicitly state which signatures are supported by a type. The compiler checks that the user type supports the correct methods when the type is passed to a function. Signatures are supported in the GNU C compiler g [5] and in the Theta [9] programming language. In the functional programming community, the Haskell [15] and Standard ML [23] languages use signatures to constrain generic type parameters. In addition to the use of interfaces mentioned above, the UML also supports types, which are equivalent to signatures [25] 2.1.4 ....

M. Day, R. Gruber, B. Liskov, and A. C. Myers. Subtypes vs. where clauses: Constraining parametric polymorphism. In OOPSLA, pages 156--158, 1995.

....and design. Sec. 1.3 both describes the organization of the report and summarizes its results. 1.1 Language model This report assumes a model of object oriented programming based on objects, object types, and classes. The model is a standard, single inheritance model, except that, like Theta ([Day95]) it separates object types from classes and it associates behavioral specifications with object types. Chapter 7 considers multiple inheritance. An object is a set of instance variables and code for its methods. An object type describes the behavior of objects. Looked at the other way around, ....

M. Day, R. Gruber, B. Liskov, and A. Myers. Subtypes vs. where clauses: constraining parametric polymorphism. OOPSLA '95 Conf. Proceedings (Austin, TX). Published as ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 30(10):156--68. ACM, Oct. 1995.

No context found.

M. Day, R. Gruber, B. Liskov, and A. C. Myers. Subtypes vs. where clauses: Constraining parametric polymorphism. In Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA), October 1995.

No context found.

B. Liskov M. Day, R. Gruber and A. C. Myers. Subtypes vs. Where Clauses: Constraining Parametric Polymorphism. In Proceedings of Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages and Applications, pages 156-168, 1995.

No context found.

M. Day, R. Gruber, B. Liskov, and A. C. Myers. Subtypes vs. where clauses: Constraining parametric polymorphism. In Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA), October 1995.

No context found.

M. Day, R. Gruber, B. Liskov, and A. C. Myers. Subtypes vs. where clauses: Constraining parametric polymorphism. In Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA), October 1995.

No context found.

M. Day, R. Gruber, B. Liskov, and A. C. Myers. Subtypes vs. where clauses: Constraining parametric polymorphism. In Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA), October 1995.

....i 2 f1: kg. This restriction prevents encapsulated objects from being passed on to unencapsulated objects. Constraints on Owners: Our type system allows classes and methods to specify constraints on owner parameters using where clauses. This is somewhat analogous to the use of where clauses in [20, 42]. To see an illustration, consider the parameterized method elements in Figure 6. The method speci es that (enumOwner stackOwner) using a where clause. It is therefore legal for the method to instantiate the type TStackEnumhenumOwner, stackOwner, TOwneri. Without the where clause, the above ....

M. Day, R. Gruber, B. Liskov, and A. C. Myers. Subtypes vs. where clauses: Constraining parametric polymorphism. In Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA), October 1995.

....i # 1. k . This restriction prevents encapsulated objects from being passed on to unencapsulated objects. Constraints on Owners: Our type system allows classes and methods to specify constraints on owner parameters using where clauses. This is somewhat analogous to the use of where clauses in [20, 42]. To see an illustration, consider the parameterized method elements in Figure 6. The method specifies that (enumOwner stackOwner) using a where clause. It is therefore legal for the method to instantiate the type TStackEnum#enumOwner, stackOwner, TOwner #. Without the where clause, the above ....

M. Day, R. Gruber, B. Liskov, and A. C. Myers. Subtypes vs. where clauses: Constraining parametric polymorphism. In Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA), October 1995.

No context found.

M. Day, R. Gruber, B. Liskov, and A. C. Myers. Subtypes vs. where clauses: Constraining parametric polymorphism. In OOPSLA, pages 156--158, 1995.

No context found.

M. Day, R. Gruber, B. Liskov, and A. C. Meyers. Subtypes vs. where clauses: Constraining parametric polymorphism. In OOPSLA '95 Conference Proceedings, volume 30(10) of ACM SIGPLAN Notices, pages 156--168, 1995.

No context found.

Mark Day, Robert Gruber, Barbara Liskov, and Andrew C. Myers. Subtypes vs. where clauses: Constraining parametric polymorphism. In Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA), October 1995.

No context found.

M. Day, R. Gruber, B. Liskov, and A. C. Myers. Subtypes vs. where clauses: Constraining parametric polymorphism. In Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA), October 1995.

No context found.

Mark Day, Robert Gruber, Barbara Liskov, and Andrew C. Meyers. Subtypes vs. where clauses: Constraining parametric polymorphism. In Proc. of ACM OOPSLA, pages 156--168, Austin, TX, October 1995.

No context found.

Mark Day, Robert Gruber, Barbara Liskov, Andrew Myers. Subtypes vs. Where Clauses: Constraining Parametric Polymorphism. In Proceedings of the Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA), pages 156-168, Austin, October 1995. Published as ACM SIGPLAN Notices 30(10), October 1995.

No context found.

Mark Day, Robert Gruber, Barbara Liskov, and Andrew C. Myers. Subtypes vs. where clauses: Constraining parametric polymorphism. In Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA), October 1995.

No context found.

Mark Day, Robert Gruber, Barbara Liskov, and Andrew C. Myers. Subtypes vs. where clauses: Constraining parametric polymorphism. In Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA), October 1995.

No context found.

M. Day, R. Gruber, B. Liskov, and A. C. Myers. Subtypes vs. where clauses: Constraining parametric polymorphism. In Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA), October 1995.

No context found.

M. Day, R. Gruber, B. Liskov, and A. C. Myers. Subtypes vs. where clauses: Constraining parametric polymorphism. In Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA), October 1995.

First 50 documents  Next 50

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