### Table 1: Simple Experiment

"... In PAGE 3: ...Table 1: Simple Experiment In Table1 both of the factors are numerical; an example of a cate- gorical factor is the language in which the program is written, such as C++ or Java. This experiment is full factorial because all com- binations of factors/levels have been tested with each other (2x2=4 runs).... ..."

### Table 3: Interpretation of the Simple Metalanguage

1991

"... In PAGE 8: ... The de nition of signature is slightly modi ed, since the domain and codomain of an unary function symbol f: 1 ! 2 can be any type, not just base types (the fact is that in many sorted monadic logic the only types are base types). An interpretation [[ ]] of the language in a category C with a Kleisli triple (T; ; ) is parametric in an interpretation of the symbols in the signature and is de ned by induction on the derivation of well-formedness for types, terms and equations (see Table3 ). Finally we add to many sorted monadic equational logic appropriate inference rules capturing axiomatically the properties of the new type- and term- constructors after interpretation (see Table 4).... In PAGE 15: ... In this case (letT x(e1 in e2) can be replaced by [e1=x]e2, so g is simply hidc; g1i; g2: c ! c2. In the general case Table3 suggests that ; above is indeed composition in the Kleisli category, therefore hidc; g1i; g2 should be replaced by hidc; g1i; g2 . But in hidc; g1i; g2 there is a type mismatch, since the codomain of hidc; g1i is c Tc1, while the domain of Tg1 is T(c c1).... ..."

Cited by 585

### Table 1: Simple port conditions

1996

"... In PAGE 12: ..., and then wait, if necessary, until cn is true for p; it is only then that the whole composite port condition becomes true for p. The simple port conditions available in the MANIFOLD language are listed in Table1 . The three simple port conditions full, empty, and transport relate to the availability and ow of units through a port.... ..."

Cited by 33

### Table 2: Syntax for a simple imperative programming language. I identi er

"... In PAGE 3: ... Ideas such as this date back to the late 1960 apos;s, but, before discussing it in more detail, I would like to look at a more recent form of speci cation. The syntax for a simple language appears in Table2 . The semantics of the language could... In PAGE 12: ... If we think of rewriting as a `horizontal apos; kind of computa- tion (represented as a sequence of arrows from left to right) and search as a `vertical apos; kind of computation (represented with a tree), then the di erence between abstract machines, transition semantics, and natural semantics can be graphically illustrated as in Figure 1. A detailed introductory exposition of many of the relationships I have discussed here for the Simple Imperative Language in Table2 can be found in the new book of Hanne and 2It is also possible to adapt the call-by-value machine to call-by-name execution, thereby more closely matching the evaluation for PCF in Table 5.... ..."

### Table 1: Encoding Simple Patterns

2006

"... In PAGE 4: ... A simple notational extension to the escape-sequence notation of the source scanner speci cation languages (see sections 3 and 4) is permitted by reflex in order to allow input characters to range over the entire Unicode set. Table1 gives a few examples of simple regular expressions and their corresponding translation under some encoding schemes. Other patterns lead to more interesting encoded patterns.... ..."

### Table 3: Transition semantics for a simple imperative programming language. (skip; s) ! s

"... In PAGE 4: ... More precisely, a con guration is either a pair (C; s) consisting of a command C and a memory s, or a memory s. Rules for evaluating a program of the simple imperative language are given in terms of a binary relation ! on con gurations; this is de ned to be the least relation that satis es the rules in Table3 . In the transition rules for assignment, the evaluation of the command results in a new memory in which the value associated with the identi er I is bound to the value of the expression E in memory s.... In PAGE 5: ...1 It is sometimes also called a `Plotkin style apos; operational semantics because of an in uential DAIMI technical report of Gordon Plotkin [Plo81] and several papers in which he used this form of speci cation. I prefer to use the term transition semantics for the kind of operational semantics given in Table3 since `transition apos; is more descriptive in this context than `structural apos; or `Plotkin-style apos;. The terminology is also familiar from the use of similar systems in the study of process algebras (see [Hen88] for example).... ..."

### Table 1: A simple advice aspect-language (similar to advices in AspectJ).

2002

Cited by 17

### Table 4.2: Simple Channel Language Model for Post-Processor Search Example.

1995

Cited by 5

### Table IV. The simple edit distance, the best skipgram result and the percentage of exact matches for each language in the test data

2006

Cited by 4

### Table 1. syntax of a simple process algebraic language Name Axioms and inference rules

"... In PAGE 3: ... The environment may contain mutually recursive process de nitions. The label types Lp are usually left unde ned, and are implicitly understood to be the smallest label types satisfying the static constraints of Table1 . In the application part of the paper we will provide concrete instances of the set of actions Act and the process de nition environment.... In PAGE 3: ... In the application part of the paper we will provide concrete instances of the set of actions Act and the process de nition environment. In addition to the process algebraic combinators introduced by Table1 we will use generalizations for the choice and composition operators. If B denotes a nite set of behaviour expressions then P B and QG B denote the repeated application of `+ apos; and `jjG apos;, respectively, to the elements of B.... In PAGE 4: ... [Mil89]) Fact 1. The relation is a congruence with respect to all the combinators introduced in Table1 and satis es the laws listed in Table 3. u t... In PAGE 5: ...gain we have a standard result (cf. [Mil89]). Fact 2. The relation is a congruence with respect to all the combinators introduced in Table1 except for the choice combinator +, and its generalization P.... In PAGE 5: ... u t Fact 3. The relation trace is a congruence with respect to all the combinators introduced in Table1 and trace. u t... In PAGE 20: ... We start with the equivalence corresponding to Traces!(B) de ned by B1 trace! B2 i Traces!(B1) = Traces!(B2) Fact 5. The relation trace! is a congruence with respect to all the combinators introduced in Table1 and trace! trace. u t Fact 6.... ..."