Advertisement

A proof system for the language POOL

  • Frank S. de Boer
Technical Contributions
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 489)

Abstract

We present a proof system based upon Hoare-logic for the parallel object-oriented language POOL. One of the main characteristics of the language POOL is that it describes systems consisting of a dynamically evolving collection of objects, which are all executing in parallel, and which know each other by maintaining and passing around references. This means that also the communication structure of the processes is completely dynamic, without any structure imposed on it a priori. We show how one can reason about such dynamically evolving systems at an abstraction level which is at least as high as that of the programming language.

Keywords

Object object-creation rendezvous pointers proof-system Hoare-logic partial correctness soundness completeness 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [AB]
    P. America, F.S. de Boer: A proof system for a parallel programming language with dynamic process creation. Proceedings of the seventeenth International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, University of Warwick, England, July 16–20, 1990.Google Scholar
  2. [AB2]
    P. America, F.S. de Boer: A proof theory for a sequential version of POOL, C.W.I. Report, to appear.Google Scholar
  3. [Am]
    P. America: Definition of the programming language POOL-T. ESPRIT project 415A, Doc. No. 0091, Philips Research Laboratories, Eindhoven, the Netherlands, September 1985.Google Scholar
  4. [Ap]
    K.R. Apt: Formal justification of a proof system for CSP. Journal ACM, Vol. 30, No. 1, 1983, pp. 197–216.Google Scholar
  5. [Ap2]
    K.R. Apt: Ten years of Hoare logic: a survey-part 1. Journal ACM, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1981, pp. 431–483.Google Scholar
  6. [AFR]
    K.R. Apt, N. Francez, W.P. de Roever: A proof system for communicating processes, ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1980, pp. 359–385.Google Scholar
  7. [Ba]
    J.W. de Bakker: Mathematical theory of program correctness, Prentice-Hall International, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1980.Google Scholar
  8. [Bo]
    F. S. de Boer: A proof system for the language POOL, CWI-report, to appear.Google Scholar
  9. [GR]
    R. Gerth, W.P. de Roever: A proof system for concurrent Ada programs. Science of Computer Programming 4, pp. 159–204.Google Scholar
  10. [Go]
    Adele Goldberg, David Robson: Smalltalk-80, The Language and its Implementation. Addison-Wesley, 1983.Google Scholar
  11. [Ho]
    C.A.R. Hoare: An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 12, No. 10, 1969, pp. 567–580,583.Google Scholar
  12. [HR]
    J. Hooman, W.P. de Roever: The quest goes on: towards compositional proof systems for CSP. J.W. de Bakker, W.P. de Roever, G. Rozenberg (eds.): Current trends in concurrency, Proc. LPC/ESPRIT Advanced School, Springer Lecture Notes in Computer SCIENCE, Vol. 224, 1986.Google Scholar
  13. [Sc]
    Dana S. Scott: Identity and existence in intuitionistic logic. M.P. Fourman, C.J. Mulvey, D.S. Scott (eds.): Applications of Sheaves. Proceedings, Durham 1977, Springer-Verlag, 1979, pp. 660–696 (Lecture Notes in Mathematics 753).Google Scholar
  14. [ZREB]
    J. Zwiers, W.P. de Roever, P. van Emde Boas: Compositionality and concurrent networks: soundness and completeness of a proof system. Proceedings of the twelfth International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, Nafplion, Greece, July 15–19, 1985, Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science 194, pp. 509–519.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank S. de Boer
    • 1
  1. 1.Technical University EindhovenEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations