Advertisement

Formal Aspects of Computing

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 269–316 | Cite as

Reasoning about dynamically evolving process structures

  • Pierre America
  • Frank de Boer
Article

Abstract

We develop a Hoare-style proof system for reasoning about the behaviour of processes that interact via a dynamically evolving communication structure.

Keywords

Proof theory Pre- and post-conditions Process creation Dynamically evolving process structures Cooperation test Soundness Completeness 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [Ame89]
    America, P. H. M: Issues in the Design of a Parallel Object-Oriented Language.Formal Aspects of Computing,1, 366–411 (1989).Google Scholar
  2. [ABK86]
    America, P. H. M., de Bakker, J. W., Kok, J. N. and Rutten, J. J. M. M.: Operational Semantics of a Parallel Object-Oriented Language.Conference Record of the 13th Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, St. Petersburg, Florida, pp. 194–208, 1986.Google Scholar
  3. [AFR80]
    Apt, K. R., Francez, N. and de Roever, W. P.: A Proof System for Communicating Sequential Processes.ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems,2, 359–385 (1980).Google Scholar
  4. [Apt81]
    Apt, K. R.: Ten Years of Hoare logic: A Survey—Part I.ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems,3, 431–483 (1981).Google Scholar
  5. [Apt83]
    Apt, K. R.: Formal Justification of a Proof System for Communicating Sequential Processes.Journal of the ACM,30, 197–216 (1983).Google Scholar
  6. [Bak80]
    de Bakker, J. W.:Mathematical Theory of Program Correctness. Prentice-Hall International, 1980.Google Scholar
  7. [GoR84]
    Goldberg, A. and Robson, D.:Smalltalk-80, The Language and its Implementation. Addison-Wesley, 1984.Google Scholar
  8. [Hoa69]
    Hoare, C. A. R.: An Axiomatic Basis for Computer Programming.Communications of the ACM,12, 567–580,583 (1969).Google Scholar
  9. [Hoa78]
    Hoare, C. A. R.: Communicating Sequential Processes.Communications of the ACM,21, 666–677 (1978).Google Scholar
  10. [HoR86]
    Hooman, J. and de Roever, W. P.: The Quest Goes On: Towards Compositional Proof Systems for CSP. In J.W. de Bakker, W.P. de Roever, G. Rozenberg (eds.):Current Trends in Concurrency, Springer LNCS 224, pp. 343–395, 1986.Google Scholar
  11. [Mel91]
    Meldal, S.: Axiomatic Semantics of Access Type Tasks in Ada. Report No. 100, Institute of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway, May 1986. Appeared as “Complete Axiomatic Semantics of Spawning,”Distributed Computing,3, 159–174 (1991).Google Scholar
  12. [Mey88]
    Meyer, B.:Object-Oriented Software Construction. Prentice-Hall, 1988.Google Scholar
  13. [TuZ88]
    Tucker, J. V. and Zucker, J. I.:Program Correctness over Abstract Data Types, with Error-State Semantics. CWI Monographs 6, North-Holland, 1988.Google Scholar
  14. [ZRE85]
    Zwiers, J., de Roever, W. P. and van Emde Boas, P.: Compositionality and concurrent networks: soundness and completeness of a proof system.Proceedings of the 12th ICALP, Nafplion, Greece, Springer LNCS 194, pp. 509–519, 1985.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© BCS 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre America
    • 1
  • Frank de Boer
    • 2
  1. 1.Philips Research LaboratoriesEindhovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Computing ScienceEindhoven University of TechnologyMB EindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations