"... In PAGE 4: ... (Below, we explain this predicate in more detail.) Table1 lists some of the predicates that constitute the representational map- ping. Because our logic language is dynamically typed, in this table we use the following naming convention to indicate the types of the arguments to a predicate: a variable named ?C represents a Smalltalk class, ?M a method parse tree, ?N a method name, ?V an instance variable name, ?P the name prefixes and postfixes of a list, and so on.... In PAGE 5: ...Table 1 The representational mapping of a Smalltalk method protocol, ?MC a Smalltalk meta class, ?Stats a list of Smalltalk statements and ?Args a list of names of argument variables. At this point, to avoid any confusion on the intended semantics of the predi- cates in Table1 , we stress that these predicates are ordinary Prolog-like pred- icates that can be used only to verify or search for information. For example, class(?C) can be used to retrieve all classes in the Smalltalk image or, when ?C is bound to a value, to check whether a certain class exists in the Smalltalk im- age.... In PAGE 15: ... generateAccessorCode(?C,?V) if instVar(?C,?V), Verify that no method with name ?V exists not(classImplements(?C,?V)), Construct the method body gettingMethodStats(?Stats,?V), Generate code from the parse tree description generateMethod( method(?C,?V, lt; gt;, lt; gt;,?Stats)). Note that, to build the actual structural description of the method to be gen- erated, we use the predicates of the representational mapping ( Table1 ) to fill in the different parts of the method parse tree, rather than merely using them for checking or searching the Smalltalk image. Again, the multi-way reason- ing capabilities and the powerful unification mechanism of our logic language prove quite handy here.... ..."

"... In PAGE 2: ... (Below, we explain this predicate in more detail.) Table1 lists some of the predicates that constitute the representational mapping. Because our logic language is dynamically typed, in this table we use the following naming convention to indicate the types of the arguments to a predicate: a variable named ?C represents a Smalltalk class, ?M a method parse tree, ?N a method name, ?V an instance variable name, ?P the name of a Smalltalk method protocol, ?MC a Smalltalk meta class, ?Stats a list of Smalltalk statements and ?Args a list of names of argument variables.... In PAGE 3: ...Table1 , we stress that these predicates are ordinary Prolog-like predicates that can be used only to verify or search for information. For example, class(?C) can be used to retrieve all classes in the Smalltalk image or, when ?C is bound to a value, to check whether a certain class exists in the Smalltalk image.... In PAGE 7: ... generateAccessorCode(?C,?V) if instVar(?C,?V), Verify that no method with name ?V exists not(classImplements(?C,?V)), Construct the method body gettingMethodStats(?Stats,?V), Generate code from the parse tree description generateMethod( method(?C,?V,kl,kl,?Stats)). Note that, to build the actual structural description of the method to be generated, we use the predicates of the representational mapping ( Table1 ) to fill in the different parts of the method parse tree, rather than merely using them for checking or searching the Smalltalk image. Again, the multi-way reasoning capabilities and the powerful unifica- tion mechanism of our logic language prove quite handy here.... ..."

"... In PAGE 4: ... (Below, we explain this predicate in more detail.) Table1 lists some of the predicates that constitute the representational map- ping. Because our logic language is dynamically typed, in this table we use the following naming convention to indicate the types of the arguments to a predicate: a variable named ?C represents a Smalltalk class, ?M a method parse tree, ?N a method name, ?V an instance variable name, ?P the name of a Smalltalk method protocol, ?MC a Smalltalk meta class, ?Stats a list of... In PAGE 5: ...At this point, to avoid any confusion on the intended semantics of the predi- cates in Table1 , we stress that these predicates are ordinary Prolog-like pred- icates that can be used only to verify or search for information. For example, class(?C) can be used to retrieve all classes in the Smalltalk image or, when ?C is bound to a value, to check whether a certain class exists in the Smalltalk im- age.... In PAGE 15: ...method(?C,?V, lt; gt;, lt; gt;,?Stats)). Note that, to build the actual structural description of the method to be gen- erated, we use the predicates of the representational mapping ( Table1 ) to fill in the different parts of the method parse tree, rather than merely using them for checking or searching the Smalltalk image. Again, the multi-way reason- ing capabilities and the powerful unification mechanism of our logic language prove quite handy here.... ..."

"... In PAGE 6: ... (Below, we explain this predicate in more detail.) Table1 lists some of the predicates that constitute the representational mapping. Because our logic language is dynamically typed, in this table we use the following naming convention to indicate the types of the arguments to a predicate: a variable named ?C represents a Smalltalk class, ?M a method parse tree, ?N a method name, ?V an instance variable name, ?P the name of a Smalltalk method protocol, ?MC a Smalltalk meta class, ?Stats a list of Smalltalk statements and ?Args a list of names of argument variables.... In PAGE 6: ... Because our logic language is dynamically typed, in this table we use the following naming convention to indicate the types of the arguments to a predicate: a variable named ?C represents a Smalltalk class, ?M a method parse tree, ?N a method name, ?V an instance variable name, ?P the name of a Smalltalk method protocol, ?MC a Smalltalk meta class, ?Stats a list of Smalltalk statements and ?Args a list of names of argument variables. At this point, to avoid any confusion on the intended semantics of the predicates in Table1 , we stress that these predicates are ordinary Prolog-like predicates that can be used only to verify or search for information. For example, class(?C) can be used to retrieve all classes in the Smalltalk image or, when ?C is bound to a value, to check whether a certain class exists in the Smalltalk image.... In PAGE 21: ...gettingMethodStats(?Stats,?V), Generate code from the parse tree description generateMethod( method(?C,?V, lt; gt;, lt; gt;,?Stats)). Note that, to build the actual structural description of the method to be generated, we use the predicates of the representational mapping ( Table1 ) to fill in the dif- ferent parts of the method parse tree, rather than merely using them for checking or searching the Smalltalk image. Again, the multi-way reasoning capabilities and the powerful unification mechanism of our logic language prove quite handy here.... ..."

"... In PAGE 19: ... The boundaries of cluster C1, C2 and C3 were defined interactively. In addition to the 2D array, we need also to save the following mapping parameters in Table1 for the labeling... ..."

"... In PAGE 2: ... This is achieved by hardcoding them in the metalevel interface. Table1 lists those mapping predicates that are needed for the purpose of this paper. The represen- tational mapping predicates are largely independent of the particular object-oriented base-language that is used, since they cover concepts that are present in one way or another in most object-oriented languages.... In PAGE 4: ... 4. Evolution Transformations The representational mapping predicates of Table1 can be combined to form refactoring transformations that make high-level structural changes to the software. We can also specify design pattern transformations to evolve pattern in- stances.... ..."

"... In PAGE 2: ... This is achieved by hardcoding them in the metalevel interface. Table1 lists those mapping predicates that are needed for the purpose of this paper. The represen- tational mapping predicates are largely independent of the particular object-oriented base-language that is used, since they cover concepts that are present in one way or another in most object-oriented languages.... In PAGE 4: ... 4. Evolution Transformations The representational mapping predicates of Table1 can be combined to form refactoring transformations that make high-level structural changes to the software. We can also specify design pattern transformations to evolve pattern in- stances.... ..."