Advertisement

Pragmatics of Modular SOS

  • Peter D. Mosses
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2422)

Abstract

Modular SOS is a recently-developed variant of Plotkin’s Structural Operational Semantics (SOS) framework. It has severalpra gmatic advantages over the originalfram ework—the most significant being that rules specifying the semantics of individual language constructs can be given definitively, once and for all.

Modular SOS is being used for teaching operational semantics at the undergraduate level. For this purpose, the meta-notation for modular SOS rules has been made more user-friendly, and derivation of computations according to the rules is simulated using Prolog.

After giving an overview of the foundations of Modular SOS, this paper gives some illustrative examples of the use of the framework, and discusses various pragmatic aspects.

Keywords

Transition System Operational Semantic Abstract Syntax Action Semantic Exception Handler 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    L. Aceto, W. J. Fokkink, and C. Verhoef. Structuralop erational semantics. In J. A. Bergstra, A. Ponse, and S. A. Smolka, editors, Handbook of Process Algebra, chapter 1: Basic Theory, pages 197–292. Elsevier, 2001.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Berry, R. Milner, and D. N. Turner. A semantics for ML concurrency primitives. In Proc. 17th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 119–129. ACM, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. de O. Braga. Rewriting Logic as a Semantic Framework for Modular Structural Operational Semantics. PhD thesis, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, Rua Marquês de São Vicente 255, Gávea, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil, September 2001. http://www.inf.puc-rio.br/~cbraga.
  4. 4.
    C. de O. Braga, E. H. Haeusler, J. Meseguer, and P. D. Mosses. Maude action tool: Using reflection to map action semantics to rewriting logic. In AMAST 2000, volume 1816 of LNCS, pages 407–421. Springer-Verlag, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. H. Hartel. LETOS— a lightweight execution tool for operational semantics. Software—Practice and Experience, 29(15):1379–1416, Sept. 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Heering and P. Klint. Semantics of programming languages: A tool-oriented approach. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, Mar. 2000.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Hennessy. The Semantics of Programming Languages: An Elementary Introduction Using Structural Operational Semantics. Wiley, New York, 1990.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    G. Kahn. Naturalseman tics. In STACS’87, Proc. Symp. on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, volume 247 of LNCS, pages 22–39. Springer-Verlag, 1987.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Milner. Operational and algebraic semantics of concurrent processes. In J. van Leeuwen, A. Meyer, M. Nivat, M. Paterson, and D. Perrin, editors, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, volume B, chapter 19. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam; and MIT Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Milner, M. Tofte, R. Harper, and D. MacQueen. The Definition of Standard ML (Revised). The MIT Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. Moggi. An abstract view of programming languages. Technical Report ECSLFCS-90-113, Computer Science Dept., University of Edinburgh, 1990.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    P. D. Mosses. Action Semantics. Number 26 in Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science. Cambridge University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    P. D. Mosses. Foundations of modular SOS. Research Series RS-99-54, BRICS, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Aarhus, 1999. http://www.brics.dk/RS/99/54; ful lversion of [14].
  14. 14.
    P. D. Mosses. Foundations of Modular SOS (extended abstract). In MFCS’99, volume 1672 of LNCS, pages 70–80. Springer-Verlag, 1999. Full version available at http://www.brics.dk/RS/99/54/.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    P. D. Mosses. A modular SOS for Action Notation. Research Series RS-99-56, BRICS, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Aarhus, 1999. http://www.brics.dk/RS/99/56. Ful lversion of [16].
  16. 16.
    P. D. Mosses. A modular SOS for Action Notation (extended abstract). In AS’99, number NS-99-3 in Notes Series, pages 131–142, BRICS, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Aarhus, 1999. Full version available at http://www.brics.dk/RS/99/56/.
  17. 17.
    P. D. Mosses. A modular SOS for ML concurrency primitives. Research Series RS-99-57, BRICS, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Aarhus, 1999. http://www.brics.dk/RS/99/57/.
  18. 18.
    P. D. Mosses. AN-2: Revised action notation—syntax and semantics. Available at http://www.brics.dk/~pdm/papers/Mosses-AN-2-Semantics/, Oct. 2000.
  19. 19.
    P. D. Mosses. Fundamentalc oncepts and formal semantics of programming languages. Lecture Notes. Version 0.2, available from http://www.brics.dk/~pdm/, Sept. 2002.
  20. 20.
    H. R. Nielson and F. Nielson. Semantics with Applications: A Formal Introduction. Wiley, Chichester, UK, 1992.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    G. D. Plotkin. A structural approach to operational semantics. Lecture Notes DAIMI FN-19, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Aarhus, 1981.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    K. Slonneger and B. L. Kurtz. Formal Syntax and Semantics of Programming Languages: A Laboratory Based Approach. Addison-Wesley, 1995.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    G. Winskel. The Formal Semantics of Programming Languages: An Introduction. MIT Press, 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter D. Mosses
    • 1
  1. 1.BRICS* and Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of AarhusAarhus CDenmark

Personalised recommendations