Class-sort polymorphism in GLIDER

  • S. Clérici
  • R. Jiménez
  • F. Orejas
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1130)


In this paper we propose a semantic framework for dealing with class- sort polymorphism as presented in the last version of GLIDER. This kind of polymorphism is quite more powerful than the standard sort polymorphism that can be found in a number of functional languages (e.g. Standard ML, Miranda, etc.).In particular, polymorphic or generic types are considered to be parameterized by specifications (i.e. sorts, operations and even axioms) and not just by sorts. The semantic framework defined is based on the idea that the type structure underlying a certain specification should be a category. In particular, this category has, as objects, the given specifications including all the implicit instances of the generic types and the derived subclass relationships. Then, the semantics of a GLIDER specification is a category having the “same structure” as the underlying category of types.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    D. Bert, R. Echahed: Design and implementation of a generic, logic and functional programming language, Proc. ESOP 86, Springer LNCS 213 (1986), 119–132.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    M. Broy et al: The Requirement and Design Specification Language Spectrum-An Informal Introduction. Version 1.0. Report 19311. Tech. Univ. Munich. 1993.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    □Burstall, R.M.; Goguen, J.A.: “The semantics of Clear, a specification language”, Abstract Software Specification, Springer LNCS 86, pp. 292–332, 1980.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    S. Clerici, R.M. Jimenez, F. Orejas, Semantic Constructions in the GLIDER Specification Language. in 'Recent Trends in Data Type Specification, Springer LNCS 785 (1994) pp. 144–157.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    □Clerici, S.; Jimenez, R.; Orejas, F.: Final Report on Semantics, Icarus Deliverable Report — D-54, Barcelona 1994.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    □Clerici, S.; Orejas, F.: “GSBL: An algebraic specification language based on inheritance” in ECOOP'88 S. Gjessing y K. Nygaard' (eds.), Springer LNCS 322 (1988) pp. 78–92.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    □Clerici, S.; Orejas, F.: “The specification language GSBL” in ‘Recent trends in data type specification' Springer LNCS 534, 1991, pp. 31–51.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    □Ehrig, H.; Mahr, B.: “Fundamentals of algebraic specification 1”, EATCS Monographs on Theor. Comp. Sc., Springer Verlag, 1985.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    J. C. Reynolds: Using category theory to design implicit conversions and generic operators, in N.D. Jones (ed.) 'semantics-Directed Compiler Generation', Springer LNCS 94 (1980) 211–258.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    M. Wirsing: Algebraic Specification Languages: An Overview, in Recent Trends in Data Type Specification, E. Astesiano, G. Reggio, A. Tarlecki (eds.), Springer LNCS 906 (1995) 81–115.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Clérici
    • 1
  • R. Jiménez
    • 1
  • F. Orejas
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. Lleng. y Sist. InformàticsUniversitat Politècnica de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations