|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ABSTRACT
A recent SIGACT News Logic column, guest-written by James Cheney DOI = 10.1145/1107523.1107537, discussed nominal logic [1], an approach to abstract syntax with binding structure. In addition to providing a worthy tutorial on nominal logic, that column leveled five criticisms at higher-order abstract syntax, an alternative approach for dealing with binding structure in abstract syntax. We argue below that three of those criticisms are factually inaccurate, and the other two are misguided. REFERENCES
Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.
INDEX TERMS
Primary Classification:
Additional Classification:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||