On the correspondence of lambda style reduction and combinator style reduction

  • Hans-Georg Oberhauser
Models For Graph Reduction
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 279)


A unifying model for lambda style reduction and combinator style reduction is presented. Both reduction types will be described as tree transforming mechanisms thus avoiding as many of the usual implementation details as possible. It will be shown that there is a very strong correspondence between the two reduction mechanisms. This correspondence offers a basis for a fair comparison of the complexities of both mechanisms.


Free Variable Recursive Call Reduction Rule Functional Program Graph Reducer 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

11. Literature

  1. Cla80.
    T.J.W. Clarke, P.J.S. Gladstone, C.D. MacLean and A.C. Norman, “SKIM — The S, K, I Reduction Machine”, Procedings of the 1980 ACM Lisp Conference, p. 128–135, Aug. 1980.Google Scholar
  2. Hen80.
    P. Henderson, “Functional Programming: Application and Implementation”, Prentice-Hall International Series in Computer Science, 1980.Google Scholar
  3. Hud84.
    P. Hudak and D. Kranz, “A Combinator-based Compiler for a Functional Language”, Eleventh annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, January 1984.Google Scholar
  4. Hug82.
    R. J. M. Hughes, “Super-Combinators”, Conference Record of the 1982 ACM Symposium on LISP and Functional Programming1–10, 1982.Google Scholar
  5. Ida84.
    T. Ida and A. Konagaya, “Comparison of closure reduction and combinator reduction schemes”, unpublished, 1984.Google Scholar
  6. Jon82.
    Simon Peyton Jones, “An Investigation on the Relative Efficiencies of Combinators and Lambda Expressions”, Conference Record od the 1982 ACM Symposium on Lisp and Functional Programming, p. 150–158, Aug. 1982.Google Scholar
  7. Joy85.
    M.S. Joy and V.J. Rayward-Smith, F.W. Burton, “Efficient Combinator Code”, Computer Lang. Vol. 10, No. 3/4, 1985.Google Scholar
  8. Ken82.
    J.R. Kennaway, “The Complexity of a Translation of λ-calculus to Combinators”, Report CS/82/23/E, p. University of East Anglia, 1982.Google Scholar
  9. Obe86a.
    H.G. Oberhauser, “A Fully Lazy Lambda Style Graph Reducer”, SFB 124-C1, 06/1986, Universität des Saarlandes, West Germany, 1986.Google Scholar
  10. Obe86.
    H.G. Oberhauser, “On the Correspondence of Lambda Style Reduction and Combinator Style Reduction”, SFB 124-C1, 02/1986, Universität des Saarlandes, West Germany, 1986.Google Scholar
  11. Sto84.
    W.R. Stoye, T.J.W. Clarke and A.C. Norman, “Some Practical Methods for Rapid Combinator Reduction”, 1984 ACM Symposium on Lisp and Functional Programming, p. 159–166, 1984.Google Scholar
  12. Tur79.
    D.A. Turner, “A new implementation technique for applicative languages”, Software — Practice and Experience, 9, p. 31–49, Sept. 1979.Google Scholar
  13. Tur79a.
    D.A. Turner, “Another algorithm for bracket abstraction”, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 44, June 1979.Google Scholar
  14. Wad71.
    C. P. Wadsworth, “Semantics and Pragmatics of the Lambda-Calculus.”, Ph.D Thesis, Oxford University, 1971.Google Scholar
  15. Wis82.
    D.S. Wise, “Interpreters for Functional Languages”, Functional Programming and it's Applications, an advanced course. Cambridge University Press, 1982.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans-Georg Oberhauser
    • 1
  1. 1.FB 10 - InformatikUniversität des SaarlandesSaarbrücken

Personalised recommendations