Advertisement

Proving correctness of constructor implementations

  • Jordi Farrés-Casals
Communications
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 379)

Abstract

In [ST 88b] the notion of constructor implementation was introduced generalizing previous well-known implementation definitions such as in [EKMP 82]. In this paper we explore a proof strategy for this kind of implementation in a specification language close to ASL. The results show that these proofs are feasible in some cases, but since a general result is not attainable we are satisfied by coping with the most common cases.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [BHK 86]
    J.A.Bergstra, J.Heering, P.Klint. Module algebra. Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica, Report CS-R8617, 1986.Google Scholar
  2. [B 87]
    R.Burstall. Inductively defined functions in functional programming languages. Report CSR-230-87, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  3. [EKMP 82]
    H. Ehrig, H.-J. Kreowski, B. Mahr, P. Padawitz. Algebraic implementation of abstract data types. Theoretical Computer Science 20 (1982) p. 209–263.Google Scholar
  4. [EWT 82]
    H.Ehrig, E.Wagner, J.Thatcher. Algebraic specifications with generating constraints. In 10th ICALP 1983, Barcelona. LNCS 154, p. 188–202.Google Scholar
  5. [Far 89]
    J.Farrés-Casals. Proving correctness of constructor implementations. LFCS Report Series 89-72, University of Edinburgh, 1989.Google Scholar
  6. [GB 80]
    J.Goguen, R.Burstall. CAT, a system for the structured elaboration of correct programs from structured specifications. SRI International, Technical Report CSL-118, 1980.Google Scholar
  7. [GB 84]
    J.Goguen, R.Burstall. Introducing Institutions. Proc. Workshop on Logic of Programs. LNCS 140. Springer 1984. p. 221–256.Google Scholar
  8. [SB 83]
    D. Sannella, R. Burstall. Structured theories in LCF. Proc. 8th Colloq. on Trees in Algebra and Programming. L'Aquila, Italy. LNCS 159 (1983), p. 377–391.Google Scholar
  9. [ST 88a]
    D. Sannella, A. Tarlecki. Specifications in an arbitrary institution. Information and Computation 76 (1988), p. 165–210.Google Scholar
  10. [ST 88b]
    D. Sannella, A. Tarlecki. Towards formal development of programs from algebraic specifications: Implementations revisited. Acta Informatica 25 (1988), p. 233–281.Google Scholar
  11. [ST 89]
    D.Sannella, A.Tarlecki. Toward formal development of ML programs: foundations and methodology. Proc. Colloq. on Current Issues in Programming Languages, Barcelona, March 1989, Springer LNCS 352.Google Scholar
  12. [SW 83]
    D. Sannella, M. Wirsing. A kernel language for algebraic specification and implementation. Proc. Intl. Conf. on Foundations of Computation Theory, Borgholm, Sweden. Springer LNCS 158, p. 413–427, 1983.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jordi Farrés-Casals
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory for Foundations of Computer ScienceUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghScotland

Personalised recommendations