Advertisement

Extended ML: Past, present and future

  • Donald Sannella
  • Andrzej Tarlecki
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 534)

Abstract

An overview of past, present and future work on the Extended ML formal program development framework is given, with emphasis on two topics of current active research: the semantics of the Extended ML specification language, and tools to support formal program development.

Keywords

Proof System Proof Obligation Module Language Static Semantic Dynamic Semantic 
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.

6 References

  1. [AM 87]
    A. Appel and D. MacQueen. A Standard ML compiler. Proc. Conf. on Functional Programming and Computer Architecture, Portland. LNCS 274 Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Volume 274 (1987).Google Scholar
  2. [BHK 90]
    J. Bergstra, J. Heering and P. Klint. Module algebra. Journal of the Assoc. for Computing Machinery 37(2), 335–372 (1990).Google Scholar
  3. [Bid 89]
    M. Bidoit. PLUSS, un langage pour le développement de spécifications algébriques modulaires. Thèse d'Etat, Université Paris-Sud, Orsay (1989).Google Scholar
  4. [BW 88]
    R. Bird and P. Wadler. Introduction to Functional Programming. Prentice-Hall (1988).Google Scholar
  5. [BM 88]
    R. Boyer and J. Moore. A Computational Logic Handbook. Academic Press (1988).Google Scholar
  6. [BW 82]
    M. Broy and M. Wirsing. Partial abstract data types. Acta Informatica 18(1), 47–64 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [Bur 89]
    R. Burstall. Computer-assisted proof for mathematics: an introduction, using the Lego proof system. Proc. IAM Conf. on The Revolution in Mathematics Caused by Computing, Brighton (1989).Google Scholar
  8. [BMS 80]
    R. Burstall, D. MacQueen and D. Sannella. HOPE: an experimental applicative language. Proc. 1980 LISP Conference, Stanford, 136–143 (1980).Google Scholar
  9. [Coq 86]
    T. Coquand. An analysis of Girard's paradox. Proc. IEEE Symp. on Logic in Computer Science, Cambridge (1986).Google Scholar
  10. [EM 85]
    H. Ehrig and B. Mahr. Fundamentals of Algebraic Specification 1: Equations and Initial Semantics. EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 6. Springer (1985).Google Scholar
  11. [Far 89]
    J. Farrés-Casals. Proving correctness of constructor implementations. Proc. 1989 Symp. on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science. LNCS 379, 225–235 (1989).Google Scholar
  12. [Far 90]
    J. Farrés-Casals. Proving correctness w.r.t. specifications with hidden parts. Proc. 2nd Intl. Conf. on Algebraic and Logic Programming, Nancy. LNCS 463, 25–39 (1990).Google Scholar
  13. [Far 91]
    J. Farrés-Casals. Verification in ASL and Related Specification Languages. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Edinburgh, to appear (1991).Google Scholar
  14. [FJKR 87]
    L. Feijs, H. Jonkers, C. Koymans and G. Renardel de Lavalette. Formal definition of the design language COLD-K. METEOR Report t7/PRLE/7, Philips Research Lab., Eindhoven (1987).Google Scholar
  15. [GB 84]
    J. Goguen and R. Burstall. Introducing institutions. Proc. Logics of Programming Workshop, Carnegie-Mellon. LNCS 164, 221–256 (1984).Google Scholar
  16. [GW 88]
    J. Goguen and T. Winkler. Introducing OBJ3. Research report, SRI International (1988).Google Scholar
  17. [GMW 79]
    M. Gordon, R. Milner and C. Wadsworth. Edinburgh LCF. LNCS 78 Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Volume 78 (1979).Google Scholar
  18. [GP 89]
    M. Gordon and A. Pitts. The HOL logic. Part II of The HOL System: Description. DSTO Australia and SRI International (preliminary version), November 1989.Google Scholar
  19. [Har 89]
    R. Harper. Introduction to Standard ML. Report ECS-LFCS-86-14, Univ. of Edinburgh. Revised edition (1989).Google Scholar
  20. [HMM 90]
    R. Harper, J. Mitchell and E. Moggi. Higher-order modules and the phase distinction. Proc. 17th ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages (1990).Google Scholar
  21. [HJ 89]
    I. Hayes and C. Jones. Specifications are (not necessarily) executable. Software Engineering Journal 4(6), 320–338 (1989).Google Scholar
  22. [Hen 90]
    R. Hennicker. Context induction: a proof principle for behavioural abstractions. Proc. Intl. Symp. on Design and Implementation of Symbolic Computation Systems, Capri. LNCS 429, 101–110 (1990).Google Scholar
  23. [HK 90]
    J. Hook and R. Kieburtz. Key Words in Context: an example. Technical Report CSE-90-012, Oregon Graduate Institute (1990).Google Scholar
  24. [HW 89]
    P. Hudak and P. Wadler et al. Report on the functional programming language Haskell. Report CSC/89/R5, Univ. of Glasgow (1989).Google Scholar
  25. [Hus 85]
    H. Hußmann. Rapid prototyping for algebraic specifications: RAP system user's manual. Report MIP-8504, Universität Passau (1985).Google Scholar
  26. [Jon 86]
    C. Jones. Systematic Software Development Using VDM. Prentice-Hall (1986).Google Scholar
  27. [KS 91]
    B. Krieg-Brückner and D. Sannella. Structuring specifications in-the-large and in-the-small: higher-order functions, dependent types and inheritance in SPECTRAL. Proc. Joint Conf. on Theory and Practice of Software Development, Brighton, April 1991. LNCS, to appear (1991).Google Scholar
  28. [LPT 89]
    Z. Luo, R. Pollack and P. Taylor. How to use Lego (a preliminary user's manual). Report LFCS-TN-27, Univ. of Edinburgh (1989).Google Scholar
  29. [MacQ 86a]
    D. MacQueen. Modules for Standard ML. In: Report ECS-LFCS-86-2, Univ. of Edinburgh (1986).Google Scholar
  30. [MacQ 86b]
    D. MacQueen. Using dependent types to express modular structure: experience with Pebble and ML. Proc. 13th ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages (1986).Google Scholar
  31. [MS 85]
    D. MacQueen and D. Sannella. Completeness of proof systems for equational specifications. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-11, 454–461 (1985).Google Scholar
  32. [MS 90]
    C. Meldrum and A.W. Smith. Design of an SML to Ten15 compiler. Harlequin Ltd. (1990).Google Scholar
  33. [Mil 78]
    R. Milner. A theory of type polymorphism in programming. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 17, 348–375 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. [Mil 89]
    R. Milner. Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall (1989).Google Scholar
  35. [MT 90]
    R. Milner and M. Tofte. Commentary on Standard ML. MIT Press (1990).Google Scholar
  36. [MTH 90]
    R. Milner, M. Tofte and R. Harper. The Definition of Standard ML. MIT Press (1990).Google Scholar
  37. [Mit 86]
    J. Mitchell. Representation independence and data abstraction. Proc. 13th ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages (1986).Google Scholar
  38. [MH 88]
    J. Mitchell and R. Harper. The essence of ML. Proc. 15th ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages (1988).Google Scholar
  39. [Pau 86]
    L. Paulson. Natural deduction proof as higher-order resolution. Journal of Logic Programming 3, 237–258 (1986).Google Scholar
  40. [Pau 87]
    L. Paulson. Logic and Computation: Interactive Proof with Cambridge LCF. Cambridge Univ. Press (1987).Google Scholar
  41. [PN 90]
    L. Paulson and T. Nipkow. Isabelle tutorial and user's manual. Report 189, Cambridge University (1990).Google Scholar
  42. [Plo 81]
    G. Plotkin. A structural approach to operational semantics. Report DAIMI FN-19, Aarhus University (1981).Google Scholar
  43. [Rea 89]
    C. Reade. Elements of Functional Programming. Addison-Wesley (1989).Google Scholar
  44. [Rei 87]
    H. Reichel. Initial Computability, Algebraic Specifications, and Partial Algebras. Oxford Univ. Press (1987).Google Scholar
  45. [San 82]
    D. Sannella. Semantics, Implementation and Pragmatics of CLEAR, a Program Specification Language. Ph.D. thesis CST-17-82, Univ. of Edinburgh (1982).Google Scholar
  46. [San 87]
    D. Sannella. Formal specification of ML programs. Jornadas Rank Xerox Sobre Inteligencia Artificial Razonamiento Automatizado, Blanes, Spain, 79–98 (1987).Google Scholar
  47. [San 91]
    D. Sannella. Formal program development in Extended ML for the working programmer. Proc. 3rd BCS/FACS Workshop on Refinement, Hursley Park, January 1990. LNCS, to appear (1991).Google Scholar
  48. [SB 83]
    D. Sannella and R. Burstall. Structured theories in LCF. Proc. 8th Colloq. on Trees in Algebra and Programming, L'Aquila, Italy. LNCS 159, 377–391 (1983).Google Scholar
  49. [SdST 90]
    D. Sannella, F. da Silva and A. Tarlecki. Syntax, typechecking and dynamic semantics for Extended ML (version 2). Draft report, Univ. of Edinburgh (1990). Version 1 appeared as Report ECS-LFCS-89-101, Univ. of Edinburgh (1989).Google Scholar
  50. [SST 90]
    D. Sannella, S. Sokolowski and A. Tarlecki. Toward formal development of programs from algebraic specifications: parameterisation revisited. Report 6/90, Univ. of Bremen (1990).Google Scholar
  51. [ST 85]
    D. Sannella and A. Tarlecki. Program specification and development in Standard ML. Proc. 12th ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, New Orleans, 67–77 (1985).Google Scholar
  52. [ST 86]
    D. Sannella and A. Tarlecki. Extended ML: an institution-independent framework for formal program development. Proc. Workshop on Category Theory and Computer Programming, Guildford. LNCS 240, 364–389 (1986).Google Scholar
  53. [ST 87]
    D. Sannella and A. Tarlecki. On observational equivalence and algebraic specification. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 34, 150–178 (1987).Google Scholar
  54. [ST 88a]
    D. Sannella and A. Tarlecki. Specifications in an arbitrary institution. Information and Computation 76, 165–210 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. [ST 88b]
    D. Sannella and A. Tarlecki. Toward formal development of programs from algebraic specifications: implementations revisited. Acta Informatica 25, 233–281 (1988).Google Scholar
  56. [ST 89]
    D. Sannella and A. Tarlecki. Toward formal development of ML programs: foundations and methodology. Proc. Joint Conf. on Theory and Practice of Software Development, Barcelona. LNCS 352, 375–389 (1989). Full version as Report ECS-LFCS-89-71, Univ. of Edinburgh (1989).Google Scholar
  57. [ST 91]
    D. Sannella and A. Tarlecki. A kernel specification formalism with higher-order parameterisation. Proc. 7th Workshop on Specification of Abstract Data Types, Wusterhausen, GDR; LNCS, this volume (1991).Google Scholar
  58. [SWa 87]
    D. Sannella and L. Wallen. A calculus for the construction of modular Prolog programs. Proc. 1987 IEEE Symp. on Logic Programming, San Francisco, 368–378 (1987); to appear in Journal of Logic Programming.Google Scholar
  59. [SW 83]
    D. Sannella and M. Wirsing. A kernel language for algebraic specification and implementation. Proc. 1983 Intl. Conf. on Foundations of Computation Theory, Borgholm, Sweden. LNCS 158, 413–427 (1983).Google Scholar
  60. [SS 83]
    W. Scherlis and D. Scott. First steps towards inferential programming. Information Processing '83, 199–212. North-Holland (1983).Google Scholar
  61. [Sch 86]
    O. Schoett. Data Abstraction and the Correctness of Modular Programming. Ph.D. thesis CST-42-87, Univ. of Edinburgh (1987).Google Scholar
  62. [Ste 90]
    A. Stevens. An Improved Method for the Mechanisation of Inductive Proof. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Edinburgh (1990).Google Scholar
  63. [SGM 89]
    T. Stroup, N. Gőtz and M. Mendler. Stepwise refinement of layered protocols by formal program development. Proc. 9th Conf. on Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification, North-Holland (1989).Google Scholar
  64. [Tof 88]
    M. Tofte. Operational Semantics and Polymorphic Type Inference. Ph.D. thesis CST-52-88, Univ. of Edinburgh (1988).Google Scholar
  65. [Tof 89]
    M. Tofte. Four lectures on Standard ML. Report ECS-LFCS-89-73, Univ. of Edinburgh (1989).Google Scholar
  66. [Wik 87]
    Å. Wikström. Functional Programming Using Standard ML. Prentice-Hall (1987).Google Scholar
  67. [Wir 86]
    M. Wirsing. Structured algebraic specifications: a kernel language. Theoretical Computer Science 42, 123–249 (1986).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donald Sannella
    • 1
  • Andrzej Tarlecki
    • 2
  1. 1.LFCS, Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghScotland
  2. 2.Institute of Computer SciencePolish Academy of SciencesWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations