From Contracts Towards Dependent Types: Proofs by Partial Evaluation

International Standards Organization: Programming Language APL, Extended. ISO N93.03, ISO (1993)Google Scholar

Iverson, K.E.: J Introduction and Dictionary. In: J release. 3rd edn. (1996)Google Scholar

Scholz, S.B.: Single Assignment C — efficient support for high-level array operations in a functional setting. Journal of Functional Programming 13(6), 1005–1059 (2003)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Bernecky, R.: Reducing computational complexity with array predicates. In: APL 1998: Proceedings of the APL98 conference on Array processing language, pp. 39–43. ACM Press, New York (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zenger, C.: Indexed types. Theoretical Computer Science 187(1-2), 147–165 (1997)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Xi, H., Pfenning, F.: Dependent Types in Practical Programming. In: POPL 1999, pp. 214–227. ACM Press, New York (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chamberlain, B., Choi, S.E., Lewis, E., Lin, C., Snyder, L., Weathersby, W.: ZPL: A Machine Independent Programming Language for Parallel Computers. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 26(3), 197–211 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chamberlain, B.L., Callahan, D., Zima, H.P.: Parallel programmability and the chapel language. International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications, 291–312 (2007)Google Scholar

Meyer, B.: Eiffel: The Language. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1990)Google Scholar

Meyer, B.: Applying design by contract. Computer 25(10), 40–51 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kramer, R.: iContract - The Java(tm) design by contract(tm) tool. In: TOOLS 1998, p. 295. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1998)Google Scholar

Karaorman, M., Holzle, U., Bruno, J.: jContractor: A reflective java library to support design by contract. In: Proceedings Reflection 1999, The Second International Conference on Meta-Level Architectures and Reflection, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, pp. 19–21. University of California at Santa Barbara (1999)Google Scholar

Ploesch, R.: Design by contract for python. In: APSEC 1997: Proceedings of the Fourth Asia-Pacific Software Engineering and International Computer Science Conference, Washington, DC, USA, p. 213. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pierce, B.C.: Types and programming languages. MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar

Trojahner, K., Grelck, C., Scholz, S.B.: On Optimising Shape-Generic Array Programs using Symbolic Structural Information. In: Horváth, Z., Zsók, V. (eds.) IFL 2006. LNCS, vol. 4449, pp. 1–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bernecky, R.: Shape cliques. ACM SIGAPL Quote Quad 35(3), 7–17 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McMahon, F.H.: The livermore fortran kernels: A computer test of the numerical performance range. Technical Report UCRL-53745, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA (1986)Google Scholar

Cann, D., Feo, J.: SISAL versus FORTRAN: a comparison using the livermore loops. In: Supercomputing 1990: Proceedings of the 1990 ACM/IEEE conference on Supercomputing, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 626–636. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1990)Google Scholar

Flanagan, C.: Hybrid type checking. In: POPL 2006: Conference record of the 33rd ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages, pp. 245–256. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Xu, D.N.: Extended static checking for haskell. In: Haskell 2006: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGPLAN workshop on Haskell, pp. 48–59. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Menon, V.S., Glew, N., Murphy, B.R., McCreight, A., Shpeisman, T., Adl-Tabatabai, A.R., Petersen, L.: A verifiable ssa program representation for aggressive compiler optimization. In: POPL 2006: Conference record of the 33rd ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages, Charleston, South Carolina, USA, pp. 397–408. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McBride, C., McKinna, J.: The view from the left. J. Funct. Program. 14(1), 69–111 (2004)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar