2012
DOI: 10.4204/eptcs.93.3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Decorated proofs for computational effects: States

Abstract: The syntax of an imperative language does not mention explicitly the state, while its denotational semantics has to mention it. In this paper we show that the equational proofs about an imperative language may hide the state, in the same way as the syntax does

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
27
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
1

Relationship

4
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…• The distinction between the language for exceptions and its associated private core language (Definitions 3.1 and 3.2) allows to split the proofs in two successive parts; in addition, the private part can be directly dualized from the proofs on global states (relying on [3] and [4]).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…• The distinction between the language for exceptions and its associated private core language (Definitions 3.1 and 3.2) allows to split the proofs in two successive parts; in addition, the private part can be directly dualized from the proofs on global states (relying on [3] and [4]).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…• A proof assistant can be used for checking the decorated proofs on exceptions. Indeed the decorated proof system for states, as described in [4] has been implemented in Coq [2] and dualized for exceptions (see http://coqeffects.forge.imag.fr).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This can be generalized to an arbitrary number of locations. The logic L st and the theory T st have to be generalized as in [5], then Proposition A.2 has to be adapted using the basic properties of lookup and update, as stated in [17]; these properties can be deduced from the decorated theory for states, as proved in [9]. The rest of the proof generalizes accordingly, as in [16].…”
Section: Proofmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, a pure term f (0) : X → Y in the logic which models the global state effect (decorated logic for the state [6]) is interpreted as a map f : X → Y in the base category C . An accessor term f (1) : X → Y as an arrow f : X → Y in C D which implicitly corresponds to a map f : X × S → Y in the base category C .…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%