Suggestions for composing and specifying program design decisions

  • M. Sintzoff
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 83)

Abstract

It is proposed to express program designs by hierarchical specifications of design decisions. A case study of program construction is presented to substantiate the proposal. Composition rules based on logic are given for these hierarchical specifications. Advantages and disadvantages of the suggestions are assessed.

References

  1. Arsac, J.J., Syntactic source to source transforms and program manipulation, Comm. ACM 22, 43–53(1979).Google Scholar
  2. Backus, J., Can programming be liberated from the von Neumann style? A functional style and its algebra of programs, Comm. ACM 21, 613–641 (1978).Google Scholar
  3. Balzer, R., Transformational implementation: an example, Information Sci. Inst., Univ. South. Calif., 1979.Google Scholar
  4. Bauer, F. L. et al., Systematics of transformation rules, Proc. Summer School Program Construction 78, LNCS 69, Springer, Berlin, 1979.Google Scholar
  5. Bentley, T. L., and M. Shaw, An Alphard specification of a correct and efficient transformation on data structures, Proc. Conf. Specifications of Reliable Software, IEEE, 1979, 222–237.Google Scholar
  6. Blikle, A., On the development of correct programs with the documentation, M79/25, Electronics Res. Lab., Univ. Calif., Berkeley, 1979.Google Scholar
  7. Boyer, R. S., and J. S. Moore, Metafunctions: proving them correct and using them efficiently as new proof procedures, Computer Sci. Lab., SRI, Menlo Park, and Systèmes et Automatique, Univ. Liège, 1979.Google Scholar
  8. Broy, M., et al. Methodical solution of the problem of ascending subsequences of maximum length within a given sequence, Information Processing Letters 8, 224–229 (1979).Google Scholar
  9. Cooper, D. C., Program scheme equivalences and second-order logic, in: B. Meltzer and D. Michie (eds.), Machine Intelligence, vol. 4, pp. 3–15, University Press, Edinburgh, 1969.Google Scholar
  10. Dijkstra, E. W., Notes on structured programming, in: O. J. Dahl, E. W. Dijkstra and C.A.R. Hoare, Structured Programming, Academic Press, London, 1972, pp. 1–82.Google Scholar
  11. Dijkstra, E. W., Some beautiful arguments using mathematical induction, Acta Informatica 13, 1–8(1980).Google Scholar
  12. Feather, M. S., A system for program transformation, Working Paper, Univ. of Edinburgh, 1979.Google Scholar
  13. Feferman, S., Theories of finite type related to mathematical practice, in: J. Barwise (Ed.), Handbook of Mathematical Logic, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1977, pp. 913–971.Google Scholar
  14. Feigenbaum, E. A., The art of artificial intelligence, Proc. 5th Int. Jt. Conf. Artif. Intell., Carnegie-Mellon Univ., Pittsburgh, 1977, pp. 1014–1029.Google Scholar
  15. Finance, J. P., Etude de la construction des programmes: méthodes et langages de spécification et de résolution de problèmes, Thèse Doct. Sci., Univ. Nancy I, 1979.Google Scholar
  16. Gordon, M., R. Milner et al., A meta-language for interactive proof in LCF, Proc. Conf. 5th Symp. Principles of Programming Languages, 1978, 119–130.Google Scholar
  17. Green, C., and D. Barstow, On program synthesis knowledge, Artificial Intelligence 10 (1978) 241–280.Google Scholar
  18. Huet, G., and B. Lang, Proving and applying program transformations expressed with second-order patterns, Acta Informatica 11, 31–55 (1978).Google Scholar
  19. Jette, C. J., Heuristic control of design-directed program transformations, Proc. AFIPS Natl. Conf., Vol. 48 (1979), 1071–1077.Google Scholar
  20. Lakatos, I., Proofs and Refutations: The Logic of Mathematical Discovery, University Press, Cambridge, 1976.Google Scholar
  21. Manna, Z., Properties of programs and first-order predicate calculus, J. ACM, 16, 244–255 (1969).Google Scholar
  22. Manna, Z., and R. Waldinger, Synthesis: dreams ⇒ programs, IEEE Trans. Software Eng. SE-5(1979) 294–328.Google Scholar
  23. Schwartz, J. T., Correct-program technology, Proc. School 77 Fondements de la Programmation, IRIA, Le Chesnay, 1979, 229–269.Google Scholar
  24. Standish, T. A., et al., Improving and refining programs by program manipulation, Proc. ACM Natl. Conf. 1976, 509–516.Google Scholar
  25. Weyrauch R., Prolegomena to a theory of formal reasoning, Report CS-78-687, Computer Sci. Dept., Stanford Univ., 1978.Google Scholar
  26. Zurcher, F. W., and B. Randell, Iterative multi-level modelling: a methodology for computer system design, Proc. IFIP Congress 68, North-Holland, 1969, pp. 867–871.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Sintzoff
    • 1
  1. 1.Philips Research Lab.BruxellesBelgique

Personalised recommendations