Advertisement

Rum an intensional theory of function and control abstractions

  • Carolyn Talcott
Part 1: Invited Contributions
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 306)

Keywords

Operational Semantic Computation Domain Extensional Property Number Tree Computation Sequence 
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.

5. References

  1. Abelson, H. and G. J. Sussman [1985] Structure and interpretation of computer programs, (The MIT Press, McGraw-Hill Book Company).Google Scholar
  2. Barendregt, H. [1981] The lambda calculus: its syntax and semantics (North-Holland, Amsterdam).Google Scholar
  3. Burge, W. H. [1971] Some examples of the use of function-producing functions, in: Proceedings, 2nd ACM symposium on symbolic and algebraic manipulation, pp. 238–241.Google Scholar
  4. Burstall, R. M. [1968] Writing search algorithms in functional form, in: Machine intelligence 3, edited by D. Michie, (Edinburgh University Press), pp. 373–385.Google Scholar
  5. Church, A. [1941] The calculi of lambda-conversion, Annals of mathematics studies, vol. 6 (Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  6. Cousot,P. and Cousot,R. [1977] Abstract interpretation: a unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixed points, in: 4th ACM symposium on principles of programming languages, pp. 238–252.Google Scholar
  7. Feferman, S. [1962] Transfinite recursive progressions of axiomatic theories, J. Symbolic Logic, 27, pp. 259–316.Google Scholar
  8. Feferman, S. [1975] Non-extensional type-free theories of partial operations and classifications, I. in: Proof theory symposium, Kiel 1974, edited by J. Diller and G. H. Müller, Lecture notes in mathematics, no. 500 (Springer, Berlin) pp. 73–118.Google Scholar
  9. Felleisen, M. and Friedman, D. P. [1986] Control operators, the SECD-machine, and the λ-calculus, in: Proceedings of the conference on formal description of programming concepts, part III. Ebberup Denmark, August 1986.Google Scholar
  10. Felleisen, M. and Friedman, D. P. [1987] A calculus for assignments in higher-order languages, in: Proceedings of the 14th ACM symposium on principles of programming languages, January 1987.Google Scholar
  11. Friedman, D. P. et.al. [1984] Fundamental abstractions of programming languages, Computer Science Department, Indiana University.Google Scholar
  12. Friedman, D. P. and M. Wand [1984] Reification: reflection without metaphysics, in: Proceedings of the 1984 ACM symposium on Lisp and functional programming, pp. 348–355.Google Scholar
  13. Gödel, K. [1931] Über formal unentscheidbare Sätz der Principia mathematica und verwandter Systeme I, Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 38, pp. 173–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goguen, J. A. and Meseguer, J. [1983] Initiality, induction, and computability, in: Applications of algebra to language definitions and compilation, edited by M. Nivat and J. Reynolds (Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  15. Kleene, S. C. [1936] λ-definability and recursiveness, Duke Mathematical Journal, 2, pp. 340–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [1952] Introduction to metamathematics, (North-Holland, Amsterdam).Google Scholar
  17. [1959] Recursive functionals and quantifiers of finite types I, Trans. Am. Math. Soc., 91, pp. 1–52.Google Scholar
  18. Landin, P. J. [1964] The mechanical evaluation of expressions, Computer Journal, 6, pp. 308–320.Google Scholar
  19. [1965] A correspondence between Algol60 and Church's lambda notation, Comm. ACM, 8, pp. 89–101, 158–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [1966] The next 700 programming languages, Comm. ACM, 9, pp. 157–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mason, I.A. [1986] The semantics of destructive Lisp, Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  22. McCarthy, J. [1960] Recursive functions of symbolic expressions and their computation by machine, Part I, Comm. ACM, 3, pp. 184–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [1963] A basis for a mathematical theory of computation, in: Computer programming and formal systems, edited by P. Braffort and D. Herschberg (North-Holland, Amsterdam) pp. 33–70.Google Scholar
  24. Milne, R. and C. Strachey [1976] A theory of programming language semantics (Chapman and Hall, London).Google Scholar
  25. Morris, F. L. [1970] The next 700 formal language descriptions, Unpublished notes, Essex University.Google Scholar
  26. Morris, J. H. [1968] Lambda calculus models of programming languages, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  27. Moschovakis Y. N. [1969] Abstract first order computability I, Trans. Am. Math. Soc., 138, pp. 427–464.Google Scholar
  28. Mosses, P. [1984] A basic abstract semantic algebra, in: Semantics of data types, international symposium, Sophia-Antipolis, June 1984, proceedings, edited by G. Kahn, D. B. MacQueen, and G. Plotkin, Lecture notes in computer science, no. 173 (Springer, Berlin) pp. 87–108.Google Scholar
  29. Plotkin, G. [1975] Call-by-name, call-by-value and the lambda-v-calculus, Theoretical Computer Science, 1, pp. 125–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [1977] LCF considered as a programming language, Theoretical Computer Science, 5, pp. 223–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [1981] A structural approach to operational semantics, Aarhus University, DAIMI FN-19.Google Scholar
  32. Reynolds, J. C. [1972] Definitional interpreters for higher-order programming languages, in: Proceedings, ACM national convention, pp. 717–740.Google Scholar
  33. Scherlis, W. L. [1981] Program improvement by internal specialization, in: Conference record of the 8th annual ACM symposium on principles of programming languages, Jan 1981, pp. 41–49.Google Scholar
  34. Schmidt, D.A. [1986] Denotatonal Semantics: a methodology for language development, (Allyn and Bacon, Newton, Mass.)Google Scholar
  35. Scott, D. [1976] Data types as lattices, SIAM J. of Computing, 5, pp. 522–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Scott, D. and C. Strachey [1971] Towards a mathematical semantics for computer languages, Oxford University Computing Laboratory, Technical Monograph PRG-6.Google Scholar
  37. Smith, B. C. [1982] Reflection and semantics in a procedural language, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  38. Smorynski, C. [1977] The incompleteness theorems, in: Handbook of mathematical logic, Barwise, J., (ed.), (North-Holland, Amsterdam), pp. 821–865.Google Scholar
  39. Steele, G. L., and G. J. Sussman, [1975] Scheme, an interpreter for extended lambda calculus, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Technical Report 349.Google Scholar
  40. Talcott, C. [1983] Seus reference manual, Perseus internal memo.Google Scholar
  41. [1985] The Essence of Rum: A theory of the intensional and extensional aspects of Lisp-type computation, Ph. D. Thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  42. [1987der] Derived properties and derived programs: Tools for reasoning about intensional properties of programs, In preparation.Google Scholar
  43. [1987wics] Programming and proving with function and control abstractions. (Lectures given for the Western Institute of Computer Science, Stanford, Summer 1986) In preparation.Google Scholar
  44. Wegbreit, B. [1975] Mechanical program analysis, Comm. ACM, 18, pp. 528–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wegner, P. [1971] Data structure models for programming languages, in: Proceedings of a symposium on data structures in programming languages, edited by J. Tou and P. Wegner, SIGPLAN Notices, 6, pp. 1–54.Google Scholar
  46. [1972] The Vienna definition language, Computing Surveys, 4, pp. 5–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Weyhrauch, R. W. [1980] Prolegomena to a theory of formal reasoning, Artificial Intelligence, 13, pp. 133–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carolyn Talcott
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentStanford UniversityStanford

Personalised recommendations