Synchronous languages have been designed to ease the development of reactive systems, by providing a methodological framework for assisting system designers from the early stages of requirement specifications to the final stages of code generation or circuit production. Synchronous languages enable a very high-level specification and an extremely modular design of complex reactive systems. We define an order-theoretical model that gives a unified mathematical formalization of all the above aspects of the synchronous methodology (from relations to circuits). The model has been specified and validated using a theorem prover as part of the certified, reference compiler of a synchronous programming language.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Samson Abramsky. Interaction Categories (Extended Abstract). In G. L. Burn, Simon J. Gay, and M. D. Ryan, editors, Theory and Formal Methods 1993: Proceedings of the First Imperial College Department of Computing Workshop on Theory and Formal Methods, pages 57–70. Springer-Verlag Workshops in Computer Science, 1993.Google Scholar
- 3.Albert Benveniste, Paul Le Guernic, and Pascal Aubry. Compositionality in dataflow synchronous languages: specification & code generation. Research Report 3310, INRIA, 1997.Google Scholar
- 5.Gerolamo Cardano. Ars Magna. 1545.Google Scholar
- 7.Bruno Barras et al. The Coq Proof Assistant Reference Manual-Version 6.2. INRIA, Rocquencourt, May 1998.Google Scholar
- 8.Simon J. Gay and Raja Nagarajan. Modelling Signal in Interaction Categories. In Geoffrey L. Burn, Simon J. Gay, and Mark D. Ryan, editors, Theory and Formal Methods 1993: Proceedings of the First Imperial College Department of Computing Workshop on Theory and Formal Methods. Springer-Verlag Workshops in Computer Science, 1993.Google Scholar
- 10.Nicolas Halbwachs. Synchronous Programming of Reactive Systems. Kluwer Academic Pub., 1993.Google Scholar
- 11.D. Nowak, J. P. Talpin, and T. Gautier. Un système de modules avancé pour Signal. Technical Report 3176, Irisa / Inria-Rennes, 1997.Google Scholar
- 13.Amir Pnueli, Natarajan Shankar, and Eli Singerman. Fair Synchronous Transition Systems and their Liveness Proofs. Technical Report SRI-CSL-98-02, The Weizmann Institute of Science and SRI International, 1998.Google Scholar
- 14.J.-P. Talpin, A. Benveniste, B. Caillaud, C. Jard, Z. Bouziane, and H. Canon. Bdl, a language of distributed reactive objects. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Object-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing. IEEE press, april 1998.Google Scholar
- 15.G. Winskel. Event structures. In W. Brauer, W. Reisig, and G. Rozenberg, editors, Petri Nets: Applications and Relationships to Other Models of Concurrency, Advances in Petri Nets 1986, Part II; Proceedings of an Advanced Course, Bad Honnef, September 1986, volume 255 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 325–392. Springer-Verlag, 1987.Google Scholar