Reasoning about Idealized ALGOL Using Regular Languages

  • Dan R. Ghica
  • Guy McCusker
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1853)


We explain how recent developments in game semantics can be applied to reasoning about equivalence of terms in a non-trivial fragment of Idealized AupLGOL (IA) by expressing sets of complete plays as regular languages. Being derived directly from the fully abstract game semantics for IA, our method of reasoning inherits its desirable theoretical properties. The method is mathematically elementary and formal, which makes it uniquely suitable for automation. We show that reasoning can be carried out using only a meta-language of extended regular expressions, a language for which equivalence is formally decidable.


Game semantics ALGOL-like languages regular languages 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    S. Abramsky and G. McCusker. Linearity, sharing and state: a fully abstract game semantics for Idealized Algol with active expressions (extended abstract). In Proceedings of 1996 Workshop on Linear Logic, volume3 of Electronic notes in Theoretical Computer Science. Elsevier, 1996. Also as Chapter 20 of [10].Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Brookes. Full abstraction for a shared variable parallel language. In Proceedings, 8th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pages 98–109, Montreal, Canada, 1993. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, California.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. Hankin and P. Malacaria. Generalised flowcharts and games. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1443, 1998.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    C. Hankin and P. Malacaria. A new approach to control flow analysis. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1383, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. R. Meyer and K. Sieber. Towards fully abstract semantics for local variables: preliminary report. In Conference Record of the Fifteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 191–203, San Diego, California, 1988. ACM, New York. Reprinted as Chapter 7 of [10].Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. W. O’Hearn, A. J. Power, M. Takeyama, and R. D. Tennent. Syntactic control of interference revisited. Theoretical Computer Science, 228:175–210, 1999. Preliminary version reprinted as Chapter 18 of [10].CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. W. O’Hearn and U. S. Reddy. Objects, interference and the Yoneda embedding. In S. Bookes, M. Main, A. Melton, and M. Mislove, editors, Mathematical Foundations of Programming Semantics, Eleventh Annual Conference, volume 1 of Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, Mar. 29–Apr. 1 1995. Elsevier Science ( Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. W. O’Hearn and J. C. Reynolds. From Algol to polymorphic linear lambda-calculus. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, to appear.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. W. O’Hearn and R. D. Tennent. Relational parametricity and local variables. In Conference Record of the Twentieth Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 171–184, Charleston, South Carolina, 1993. ACM, New York. A version also published as Chapter 16 of [10].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. W. O’Hearn and R. D. Tennent, editors. Algol-like Languages. Progress in Theoretical Computer Science. Birkhäuser, Boston, 1997. Two volumes.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    F. J. Oles. A Category-Theoretic Approach to the Semantics of Programming Languages. Ph.D. thesis, Syracuse University, Syracuse, N.Y., 1982.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. M. Pitts. Reasoning about local variables with operationally-based logical relations. In 11th Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pages 152–163. IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington, 1996. A version also published as Chapter 17 of [10].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    U. S. Reddy. Global state considered unnecessary: Introduction to object-based semantics. Lisp and Symbolic Computation, 9(1):7–76, 1996. Published also as Chapter 19 of [10].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. C. Reynolds. Syntactic control of interference. In Conference Record of the Fifth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 39–46, Tucson, Arizona, Jan. 1978. ACM, New York.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. C. Reynolds. The essence of Algol. In J.W. de Bakker and J. C. van Vliet, editors, Algorithmic Languages, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Algorithmic Languages, pages 345–372, Amsterdam, Oct. 1981. North-Holland, Amsterdam. Reprinted as Chapter 3 of [10].Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. A. Schmidt. On the need for a popular formal semantics. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 32(1):115–116, Jan. 1997.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. S. Scott and C. Strachey. Toward a mathematical semantics for computer languages. InJ. Fox, editor, Proceedings of the Symposium on Computers and Automata, volume 21 of Microwave Research Institute Symposia Series, pages 19–46. Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn Press, New York, 1971. Also Technical Monograph PRG-6, Oxford University Computing Laboratory, Programming Research Group, Oxford.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    K. Sieber. Full abstraction for the second order subset of an Algol-like language. In Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science, volume 841 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 608–617, Kosice, Slovakia, Aug. 1994. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. A version also published as Chapter 15 of [10].Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    L. J. Stockmeyer. The complexity of decision problems in automata theory and logic. Technical Report MIT/LCS/TR-133, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Laboratory for Computer Science, July 1974.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dan R. Ghica
    • 1
  • Guy McCusker
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computing and Information ScienceQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada
  2. 2.School of Cognitive and Computing SciencesUniversity of Sussex at BrightonFalmerUK

Personalised recommendations