Advertisement

Abstract

There is a standard syntax for Girard's linear logic, due to Abramsky, and a standard semantics, due to Seely. Alas, the former is incoherent with the latter: different derivations of the same syntax may be assigned different semantics. This paper reviews the standard syntax and semantics, and discusses the problem that arises and a standard approach to its solution. A new solution is proposed, based on ideas taken from Girard's Logic of Unity. The new syntax is based on pattern matching, allowing for concise expression of programs.

Keywords

Pattern Match Linear Logic Natural Deduction Linear Assumption Concrete Syntax 
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. [Abr90]
    S. Abramsky, Computational interpretations of linear logic. Presented at Workshop on Mathematical Foundations of Programming Language Semantics, 1990. To appear in Theoretical Computer Science.Google Scholar
  2. [AJ92]
    S. Abramsky and R. Jagadeesan, New foundations for the geometry of interaction. In 7'th Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, IEEE Press, Santa Cruz, California, June 1992.Google Scholar
  3. [Bar79]
    M. Barr, *-Autonomous Categories. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 752, Springer Verlag, 1979.Google Scholar
  4. [BBdPH92]
    N. Benton, G. Bierman, V. de Paiva, and M. Hyland, Type assignment for intuitionistic linear logic. Draft paper, August 1992.Google Scholar
  5. [BCGS91]
    V. Breazu-Tannen, T. Coquand, C. A. Gunter, and A. Scedrov, Inheritance as explicit coercion. Information and Compututation, 93:172–221, 1991. (An earlier version appeared in Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, IEEE Press, Asilomar, California, June 1989.)Google Scholar
  6. [BTKP93]
    V. Breazu-Tannen, D. Kesner, L. Puel, A typed pattern calculus. In 8'th Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, Montreal, June 1993.Google Scholar
  7. [CGR92]
    J. Chirimar, C. A. Gunter, and J. G. Riecke. Linear ML. In Symposium on Lisp and Functional Programming, ACM Press, San Francisco, June 1992.Google Scholar
  8. [Fil92]
    A. Filinski, Linear continuations. In Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, ACM Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico, January 1992.Google Scholar
  9. [Gir87]
    J.-Y. Girard, Linear logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 50:1–102, 1987.Google Scholar
  10. [Gir91]
    J.-Y. Girard, On the unity of logic. Manuscript, 1991.Google Scholar
  11. [Hol88]
    S. Holmström, A linear functional language. Draft paper, Chalmers University of Technology, 1988.Google Scholar
  12. [Laf88]
    Y. Lafont, The linear abstract machine. Theoretical Computer Science, 59:157–180, 1988.Google Scholar
  13. [LM92]
    P. Lincoln and J. Mitchell, Operational aspects of linear lambda calculus. In 7'th Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, IEEE Press, Santa Cruz, California, June 1992.Google Scholar
  14. [LS91]
    Y. Lafont and T. Streicher. Game semantics for linear logic. In 6'th Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, IEEE Press, Amsterdam, July 1991.Google Scholar
  15. [Mac91]
    I. Mackie, Lilac: a functional programming language based on linear logic. Master's Thesis, Imperial College London, 1991.Google Scholar
  16. [Mog89]
    E. Moggi, Computational lambda-calculus and monads. In 4'th Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, IEEE Press, Asilomar, California, June 1989.Google Scholar
  17. [O'He91]
    P. W. O'Hearn, Linear logic and interference control. In Conference on Category Theory and Computer Science, Paris, September 1991. LNCS, Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  18. [Pra91]
    V. Pratt, Event spaces and their linear logic. In AMAST '91: Algebraic Methodology And Software Technology, Iowa City, Springer Verlag LNCS, 1992.Google Scholar
  19. [Red91]
    U. Reddy, Acceptors as Values. Manuscript, December 1991.Google Scholar
  20. [See89]
    R. A. G. Seely, Linear logic, *-autonomous categories, and cofree coalgebras. In Categories in Computer Science and Logic, June 1989. AMS Contemporary Mathematics 92.Google Scholar
  21. [Tro92]
    A. S. Troelstra, Lectures on Linear Logic. CSLI Lecture Notes, 1992.Google Scholar
  22. [Wad90]
    P. Wadler, Linear types can change the world! In M. Broy and C. Jones, editors, Programming Concepts and Methods, Sea of Galilee, Israel, North Holland, April 1990.Google Scholar
  23. [Wad91]
    P. Wadler, Is there a use for linear logic? In Conference on Partial Evaluation and Semantics-Based Program Manipulation (PEPM), New Haven, Connecticut, ACM Press, June 1991.Google Scholar
  24. [Wad92]
    P. Wadler, There's no substitute for linear logic. Presented at Workshop on Mathematical Foundations of Programming Language Semantics, Oxford, April 1992.Google Scholar
  25. [Wad93]
    P. Wadler, A taste of linear logic. In Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science, Gdansk, Poland, LNCS, Springer Verlag, August 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip Wadler
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computing ScienceUniversity of GlasgowScotland

Personalised recommendations