|
ABSTRACT
We introduce and illustrate a specification method combining rule-based inductive definitions, well-founded induction principles, fixed-point theory and abstract interpretation for general use in computer science. Finite as well as infinite objects can be specified, at various levels of details related by abstraction. General proof principles are applicable to prove properties of the specified objects.
The specification method is illustrated by introducing G ∞ SOS, a structured operational semantics generalizing Plotkin's [28] structured operational semantics (SOS) so as to describe the finite, as well as the infinite behaviors of programs in a uniform way and by constructively deriving inductive presentations of the other (relational, denotational, predicate transformers, …) semantics from G ∞ SOS by abstract interpretation.
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.
| |
1
|
P. Aczel. An introduction to inductive definitions. In J. Barwise, ed., Handbook o} Mathematical Logic, Elsevier, 739-782, 1977.
|
| |
2
|
|
 |
3
|
|
| |
4
|
E. Astesiano. Inductive semantics. In E.J. Neuhold & M. Paul, eds., Formal Description of Programming Concepts, Springer, 1990.
|
| |
5
|
J. Barwise. Mixed fixed poims, in vol. 17 of CSLI lecture notes, 285-287, CSLI/Stanf0rd, 1989.
|
| |
6
|
|
| |
7
|
P. Cousot. Semantic foundations of program analysis. In S.S. Muchnick & N.D. Jones, ads., Program Flow Analysis: Theory and Applications, 303-342, Prentice-Hall, 1981.
|
 |
8
|
|
| |
9
|
P. Cousot & R. Cousot. Constructive versions of Tarski's fixed point theorems. Pacific J. of Math., 82(1):43-57, 1979.
|
 |
10
|
|
| |
11
|
P. Cousot & 1%. Cousot. Induction principles for proving invariance properties of programs, In E. Neel, ed., Tools and Notions for Program Construction, 43-I19, Cambridge U- niv. Press, 1982.
|
| |
12
|
|
| |
13
|
|
| |
14
|
|
| |
15
|
S. Feferman. Formal theories for transfinite iterations of generalized inductive definitions and some subsystems of analysis, In A. Kino, J. Myhill & R.E. Vesley, eds., Intuitionism and Proof Theory, 303-326, North Holland, 1970.
|
| |
16
|
|
| |
17
|
|
| |
18
|
|
| |
19
|
K. Kunen. Declarative semantics of logic programming. Bull. EATCS 44:147-167, 1991.
|
| |
20
|
J.-L. Lassez & M.J. Maher. Closure and fairness in the semantics of programming logic. TCS 29:167-184, 1984.
|
| |
21
|
|
| |
22
|
|
| |
23
|
|
| |
24
|
A. Mycroft. Abstract interpretatio~z and optimisin9 trans- 81, Univ. of Edinburgh, 1981.
|
| |
25
|
F. Nielson. A denotational framework for data flow analysis. Acts informatica, 18:265-287, 1982.
|
| |
26
|
|
| |
27
|
G.D. Plotkin. Call-by-name, call-by-value and the X- cMculus. TGS 1:125-159, 1975.
|
| |
28
|
G.D. Plotkin. A structural approach to operational semantics. Tech. Rap. DAIMI FN-19, Aarhus Univ., 1981.
|
| |
29
|
|
 |
30
|
|
| |
31
|
|
|