Advertisement

New Generation Computing

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 365–381 | Cite as

Inserting injection operations to denotational specifications

  • Masato Takeichi
Regular Papers
  • 11 Downloads

Abstract

In describing denotational semantics of programming languages, injection operations into sum domains are conventionally omitted for the sake of brevity. This in turn leads to difficulties for semantic processing systems which accept denotational specifications as input and mechanically calculate them for debugging the semantics. This paper describes an algorithm for inserting injection operations to denotational specifications as part of the typechecking process.

Keywords

Semantics Implementation Denotational Semantics Typechecking Polymorphic Type 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1).
    Bodwin, J., Bradley, L., Kanda, K., Litle, D. and Pleban, U., “Experience with an Experimental Compiler Generator Based on Denotational Semantics,”Proc. 1982 ACM Symp. on Compiler Construction, SIGPLAN Notices, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 216–229, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2).
    Cardelli, L., “Basic Polymorphic Typechecking,”Polymorphism,Vol. 2,No. 1, 1984.Google Scholar
  3. 3).
    Chujo, H. and Takeichi, M., “Porting ML on a New Machine,”Proc. 28th Symp. of Inf. Proc. Japan, pp. 427–428, 1984, [in Japanese]. Also Cardelli, L.,Pascal VAX-Unix Version of Edinburgh ML, converted from VMS by Nobuo Saito.Google Scholar
  4. 4).
    Futatsugi, K., Goguen, J. A., Jouannaud, J.-P. and Meseguer, J., “Principles of OBJ2,”Proc. 12th ACM Symp. on Principles of Prog. Lang., pp. 52–66, 1984.Google Scholar
  5. 5).
    Gordon, M. J. C.,The Denotational Description of Programming Languages, Springer-Verlag, 1979.Google Scholar
  6. 6).
    Gordon, M. J., Milner, R. and Wadsworth, C. P.,Edinburgh LCF, LNCS 78, Springer-Verlag, 1979.Google Scholar
  7. 7).
    Milner R., “A Theory of Type Polymorphism,”J. Comput. Syst. Sci., Vol. 17, pp. 348–375, 1978.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8).
    Mitchell, J. C., “Coercion and Type Inference (Summary),”Proc. 11th ACM Symp. on Principles of Prog. Lang., pp. 175–185, 1983.Google Scholar
  9. 9).
    Mosses, P.,SIS—Semantic Implementation System: Reference Manual and User Guide, DIAMI MD-30, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Aarhus, Denmark, 1979.Google Scholar
  10. 10).
    Ohira, T. and Takeichi, M., “A Language Development System,”Proc. 28th Symp. of Inf. Proc. Japan, pp. 329–330, 1984, [in Japanese].Google Scholar
  11. 11).
    Robinson, J. A., “A Machine-Oriented Logic Based on the Resolution Principle,”J. ACM, Vol. 12, pp. 23–49, 1965.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12).
    Stoy, J. E.,Denotational Semantics, MIT Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  13. 13).
    Wand, M., “A Semantic Prototyping System,”Proc. 1984 ACM Symp. on Compiler Construction, SIGPLAN Notices, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 213–221, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ohmsha, Ltd. and Springer 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Masato Takeichi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceThe University of Electro-CommunicationsTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations