Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (119) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (119)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (119)
Keywords
- Lambda-Kalkül (18)
- Formale Semantik (10)
- Operationale Semantik (8)
- Programmiersprache (7)
- lambda calculus (7)
- Nebenläufigkeit (6)
- functional programming (6)
- concurrency (5)
- pi-calculus (5)
- semantics (5)
Institute
- Informatik (119) (remove)
Various static analyses of functional programming languages that permit infinite data structures make use of set constants like Top, Inf, and Bot, denoting all terms, all lists not eventually ending in Nil, and all non-terminating programs, respectively. We use a set language that permits union, constructors and recursive definition of set constants with a greatest fixpoint semantics in the set of all, also infinite, computable trees, where all term constructors are non-strict. This internal report proves decidability, in particular DEXPTIME-completeness, of inclusion of co-inductively defined sets by using algorithms and results from tree automata and set constraints, and contains detailed proofs. The test for set inclusion is required by certain strictness analysis algorithms in lazy functional programming languages and could also be the basis for further set-based analyses.
Static analysis of different non-strict functional programming languages makes use of set constants like Top, Inf, and Bot denoting all expressions, all lists without a last Nil as tail, and all non-terminating programs, respectively. We use a set language that permits union, constructors and recursive definition of set constants with a greatest fixpoint semantics. This paper proves decidability, in particular EXPTIMEcompleteness, of subset relationship of co-inductively defined sets by using algorithms and results from tree automata. This shows decidability of the test for set inclusion, which is required by certain strictness analysis algorithms in lazy functional programming languages.
Motivated by our experience in analyzing properties of translations between programming languages with observational semantics, this paper clarifies the notions, the relevant questions, and the methods, constructs a general framework, and provides several tools for proving various correctness properties of translations like adequacy and full abstractness. The presented framework can directly be applied to the observational equivalences derived from the operational semantics of programming calculi, and also to other situations, and thus has a wide range of applications.
This paper shows equivalence of applicative similarity and contextual approximation, and hence also of bisimilarity and contextual equivalence, in LR, the deterministic call-by-need lambda calculus with letrec extended by data constructors, case-expressions and Haskell's seqoperator. LR models an untyped version of the core language of Haskell. Bisimilarity simplifies equivalence proofs in the calculus and opens a way for more convenient correctness proofs for program transformations.
The proof is by a fully abstract and surjective transfer of the contextual approximation into a call-by-name calculus, which is an extension of Abramsky's lazy lambda calculus. In the latter calculus equivalence of similarity and contextual approximation can be shown by Howe's method. Using an equivalent but inductive definition of behavioral preorder we then transfer similarity back to the calculus LR.
The translation from the call-by-need letrec calculus into the extended call-by-name lambda calculus is the composition of two translations. The first translation replaces the call-by-need strategy by a call-by-name strategy and its correctness is shown by exploiting infinite tress, which emerge by unfolding the letrec expressions. The second translation encodes letrec-expressions by using multi-fixpoint combinators and its correctness is shown syntactically by comparing reductions of both calculi. A further result of this paper is an isomorphism between the mentioned calculi, and also with a call-by-need letrec calculus with a less complex definition of reduction than LR.
This paper shows the equivalence of applicative similarity and contextual approximation, and hence also of bisimilarity and contextual equivalence, in the deterministic call-by-need lambda calculus with letrec. Bisimilarity simplifies equivalence proofs in the calculus and opens a way for more convenient correctness proofs for program transformations. Although this property may be a natural one to expect, to the best of our knowledge, this paper is the first one providing a proof. The proof technique is to transfer the contextual approximation into Abramsky's lazy lambda calculus by a fully abstract and surjective translation. This also shows that the natural embedding of Abramsky's lazy lambda calculus into the call-by-need lambda calculus with letrec is an isomorphism between the respective term-models.We show that the equivalence property proven in this paper transfers to a call-by-need letrec calculus developed by Ariola and Felleisen.
This paper shows equivalence of applicative similarity and contextual approximation, and hence also of bisimilarity and contextual equivalence, in LR, the deterministic call-by-need lambda calculus with letrec extended by data constructors, case-expressions and Haskell's seqoperator. LR models an untyped version of the core language of Haskell. Bisimilarity simplifies equivalence proofs in the calculus and opens a way for more convenient correctness proofs for program transformations.
The proof is by a fully abstract and surjective transfer of the contextual approximation into a call-by-name calculus, which is an extension of Abramsky's lazy lambda calculus. In the latter calculus equivalence of similarity and contextual approximation can be shown by Howe's method. Using an equivalent but inductive definition of behavioral preorder we then transfer similarity back to the calculus LR.
The translation from the call-by-need letrec calculus into the extended call-by-name lambda calculus is the composition of two translations. The first translation replaces the call-by-need strategy by a call-by-name strategy and its correctness is shown by exploiting infinite tress, which emerge by unfolding the letrec expressions. The second translation encodes letrec-expressions by using multi-fixpoint combinators and its correctness is shown syntactically by comparing reductions of both calculi. A further result of this paper is an isomorphism between the mentioned calculi, and also with a call-by-need letrec calculus with a less complex definition of reduction than LR.
This paper describes a method to treat contextual equivalence in polymorphically typed lambda-calculi, and also how to transfer equivalences from the untyped versions of lambda-calculi to their typed variant, where our specific calculus has letrec, recursive types and is nondeterministic. An addition of a type label to every subexpression is all that is needed, together with some natural constraints for the consistency of the type labels and well-scopedness of expressions. One result is that an elementary but typed notion of program transformation is obtained and that untyped contextual equivalences also hold in the typed calculus as long as the expressions are well-typed. In order to have a nice interaction between reduction and typing, some reduction rules have to be accompanied with a type modification by generalizing or instantiating types.
We propose a model for measuring the runtime of concurrent programs by the minimal number of evaluation steps. The focus of this paper are improvements, which are program transformations that improve this number in every context, where we distinguish between sequential and parallel improvements, for one or more processors, respectively. We apply the methods to CHF, a model of Concurrent Haskell extended by futures. The language CHF is a typed higher-order functional language with concurrent threads, monadic IO and MVars as synchronizing variables. We show that all deterministic reduction rules and 15 further program transformations are sequential and parallel improvements. We also show that introduction of deterministic parallelism is a parallel improvement, and its inverse a sequential improvement, provided it is applicable. This is a step towards more automated precomputation of concurrent programs during compile time, which is also formally proven to be correctly optimizing.