Incremental Reasoning for Multiple Inheritance

  • Johan Dovland
  • Einar Broch Johnsen
  • Olaf Owe
  • Martin Steffen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5423)


Object-orientation supports code reuse and incremental programming. Multiple inheritance increases the power of code reuse, but complicates the binding of method calls and thereby program analysis. Behavioral subtyping allows program analysis under an open world assumption; i.e., under the assumption that class hierarchies are extensible. However, method redefinition is severely restricted by behavioral subtyping, and multiple inheritance often leads to conflicting restrictions from independently designed superclasses. This paper presents an approach to incremental reasoning for multiple inheritance under an open world assumption. The approach, based on a notion of lazy behavioral subtyping, is less restrictive than behavioral subtyping and fits well with multiple inheritance, as it incrementally imposes context-dependent behavioral constraints on new subclasses. We formalize the approach as a calculus, for which we show soundness.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    America, P.: Designing an object-oriented programming language with behavioural subtyping. In: de Bakker, J.W., de Roever, W.-P., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) REX 1990. LNCS, vol. 489, pp. 60–90. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    America, P., van der Linden, F.: A parallel object-oriented language with inheritance and subtyping. In: Meyrowitz, N. (ed.) Proceedings of the Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA 1990), vol. 25(10), pp. 161–168. ACM Press, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Apt, K.R.: Ten years of Hoare’s logic: A survey — Part I. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 3(4), 431–483 (1981)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Apt, K.R., Olderog, E.-R.: Verification of Sequential and Concurrent Systems. In: Texts and Monographs in Computer Science. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Attali, I., Caromel, D., Ehmety, S.O.: A natural semantics for Eiffel dynamic binding. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 18(6), 711–729 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beckert, B., Hähnle, R., Schmitt, P.H. (eds.): Verification of Object-Oriented Software. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4334. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burdy, L., Cheon, Y., Cok, D.R., Ernst, M.D., Kiniry, J.R., Leavens, G.T., Leino, K.R.M., Poll, E.: An overview of JML tools and applications. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 7(3), 212–232 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cardelli, L.: A semantics of multiple inheritance. Information and Computation 76(2-3), 138–164 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chambers, C., Ungar, D., Chang, B.-W., Hölzle, U.: Parents are shared parts of objects: Inheritance and encapsulation in SELF. Lisp and Symbolic Computation 4(3), 207–222 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chin, W.-N., David, C., Nguyen, H.-H., Qin, S.: Enhancing modular OO verification with separation logic. In: Necula and Wadler [24], pp. 87–99.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Demichiel, L.G., Gabriel, R.P.: The common lisp object system: An overview. In: Bézivin, J., Hullot, J.-M., Lieberman, H., Cointe, P. (eds.) ECOOP 1987. LNCS, vol. 276, pp. 151–170. Springer, Heidelberg (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dovland, J., Johnsen, E.B., Owe, O., Steffen, M.: Incremental reasoning for multiple inheritance. Research Report 373, Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo (April 2008),
  13. 13.
    Dovland, J., Johnsen, E.B., Owe, O., Steffen, M.: Lazy behavioral subtyping. In: Cuellar, J., Maibaum, T., Sere, K. (eds.) FM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5014, pp. 52–67. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fournet, C., Laneve, C., Maranget, L., Rémy, D.: Inheritance in the Join calculus. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 57(1-2), 23–69 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: An Axiomatic Basis of Computer Programming. Communications of the ACM 12, 576–580 (1969)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Igarashi, A., Pierce, B.C., Wadler, P.: Featherweight Java: a minimal core calculus for Java and GJ. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 23(3), 396–450 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johnsen, E.B., Owe, O.: A dynamic binding strategy for multiple inheritance and asynchronously communicating objects. In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., de Roever, W.-P. (eds.) FMCO 2004. LNCS, vol. 3657, pp. 274–295. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Johnsen, E.B., Owe, O., Yu, I.C.: Creol: A type-safe object-oriented model for distributed concurrent systems. Theoretical Computer Science 365(1–2), 23–66 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Krogdahl, S.: Multiple inheritance in Simula-like languages. BIT 25(2), 318–326 (1985)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leavens, G.T., Naumann, D.A.: Behavioral subtyping, specification inheritance, and modular reasoning. Tech. Rep. 06-20a, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Iowa State University (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liskov, B.H., Wing, J.M.: A behavioral notion of subtyping. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 16(6), 1811–1841 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Luo, C., Qin, S.: Separation logic for multiple inheritance. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 212, 27–40 (2008)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meyer, B.: Object-Oriented Software Construction, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1997)MATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Necula, G.C., Wadler, P. (eds.): 37th Annual Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL 2008). ACM Press, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Owicki, S., Gries, D.: An axiomatic proof technique for parallel programs I. Acta Informatica 6(4), 319–340 (1976)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Parkinson, M.J., Biermann, G.M.: Separation logic, abstraction, and inheritance. In: Necula and Wadler [24]Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pierik, C., de Boer, F.S.: A proof outline logic for object-oriented programming. Theoretical Computer Science 343(3), 413–442 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Poetzsch-Heffter, A., Müller, P.: A programming logic for sequential Java. In: Swierstra, S.D. (ed.) ESOP 1999. LNCS, vol. 1576, pp. 162–176. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rossie Jr., J.G., Friedman, D.P., Wand, M.: Modeling subobject-based inheritance. In: Cointe, P. (ed.) ECOOP 1996. LNCS, vol. 1098, pp. 248–274. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Soundarajan, N., Fridella, S.: Inheritance: From code reuse to reasoning reuse. In: Devanbu, P., Poulin, J. (eds.) Proc. Fifth International Conference on Software Reuse (ICSR5), pp. 206–215. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1998)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stroustrup, B.: Multiple inheritance for C++. Computing Systems 2(4), 367–395 (1989)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wasserrab, D., Nipkow, T., Snelting, G., Tip, F.: An operational semantics and type safety proof for multiple inheritance in C++. In: Tarr, P.L., Cook, W.R. (eds.) Proceedings of the Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA 2006), pp. 345–362. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johan Dovland
    • 1
  • Einar Broch Johnsen
    • 1
  • Olaf Owe
    • 1
  • Martin Steffen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of InformaticsUniversity of OsloNorway

Personalised recommendations