An algebraic approach to mixins and modularity

  • Davide Ancona
  • Elena Zucca
Integration of Paradigms
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1139)


We present an algebraic formalization of the notion of mixin module, i.e. a module where the definition of some components is deferred. Moreover, we define a set of basic operators for composing mixin modules, intended to be a kernel language with clean semantics in which to express more complex operators of existing modular languages, including variants of inheritance in object oriented programming. The semantics of the operators is given in an “institution independent” way, i.e. is parameterized on the semantic framework modeling the underlying core language.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    J. Adámek, H. Herrlich, and G. Strecker. Abstract and Concrete Categories. Pure and Applied Mathematics. Wiley Interscience, New York, 1990.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Ancona and E. Zucca. A theory of mixin modules. In preparation.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. Ancona and E. Zucca. A formal framework for modules with state. In AMAST '96, LNCS, 1101, pages 148–162, 1996. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J.A. Bergstra, J. Heering, and P. Klint. Module algebra. Journ. ACM, 37(2):335–372, 1990.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Bidoit and A. Tarlecki. Behavioural satisfaction and equivalence in concrete model categories. In CAAP '96, LNCS, 1059, pages 241–256, 1996. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. Bracha. The Programming Language JIGSAW: Mixins, Modularity and Multiple Inheritance. PhD thesis, Dept. Comp. Sci., Univ. Utah, 1992.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. Bracha and W. Cook. Mixin-based inheritance. In ACM Symp. on Object-Oriented Programming: Systems, Languages and Applications 1990, pages 303–311. ACM Press, October 1990. SIGPLAN Notices, 25, 10.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    W. Cook. A Denotational Semantics of Inheritance. PhD thesis, Dept. Comp. Sci. Brown University, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Diaconescu, J. Goguen, and P. Stefaneas. Logical support for modularisation. In Gerard Huet and Gordon Plotkin, editors, Logical Environments, pages 83–130, Cambridge, 1993. University Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. Ehrig and B. Mahr. Fundamentals of Algebraic Specification 1. Equations and Initial Semantics, volume 6 of EATCS Monograph in Computer Science. Springer Verlag, 1985.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J.A. Goguen and R.M. Burstall. Institutions: Abstract model theory for computer science. Journ. ACM, 39:95–146, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    B. Meyer. Genericity versus inheritance. In ACM Symp. on Object-Oriented Programming: Systems, Languages and Applications 1986, pages 391–405. ACM Press, November 1986. SIGPLAN Notices, 21, 11.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Milner, M. Tofte, and R. Harper. The Definition of Standard ML. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1990.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Sannella and A. Tarlecki. Model-theoretic foundations for formal program development: Basic concepts and motivation. Technical Report ICS PAS 791, Inst. Comp. Sci. PAS, Warsaw, 1995.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    E. Zucca. From static to dynamic abstract data-types. In Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science 1996, LNCS, 1113, Berlin, 1996. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Davide Ancona
    • 1
  • Elena Zucca
    • 1
  1. 1.DISIUniversità di GenovaGenevaItaly

Personalised recommendations