Logic and inheritance

Aı̈t-Kaci, Hassan; Nasr, Roger

doi:10.1145/512644.512664

Cited by 14 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The format syntax is a tree-to-string transformation grammar used to construct the external textual representation of an abstract tree: arraytype + array slp indrangelist srp of type [2]; assign 4 ! var ass expr; repeatstat + !…”

Section: The Definition Of the Syntaxmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…until expr; ifthen + ! if expr then stat [2] (stat[2] ---) ! else, ); equ + CLASS (expr=equ,lt,gt -+ lp,rp) eq CLASS (expr=equ,lt,gt + lp,rp);…”

Section: The Definition Of the Syntaxmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An almost identical scheme has recently been proposed by Ait-Kaci and Nasr in order to extend PROLOG with inheritance concepts [2]. They propose terms of an order-sorted algebra as the basic PROLOG structure instead of the standard type-free terms; this can shorten the resolution process considerably.…”

Section: The Representation Of Context Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(a) We compose fragments (1) and (2) We have to unify tuple components in corresponding columns of our two relations. In the example, the column for 'a' in relation (1) has to be matched against the corresponding column for 'a' in relation (2), and the column for '(expressionl)' in relation (1) has to be matched against the column for '[ 1' in relation (2). Note that in general the scope and visibility rules of the language in question must be obeyed when determining which columns match (see below).…”

Section: Unification As a Device For Modeling The Joinmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The PSG system: from formal language definitions to interactive programming environments

Bahlke

Snelting

1986

ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst.

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The PSG programming system generator developed at the Technical University of Darmstadt produces interactive, language-specific programming environments from formal language definitions. All language-dependent parts of the environment are generated from an entirely nonprocedural specification of the language's syntax, context conditions, and dynamic semantics. The generated environment consists of a language-based editor, supporting systematic program development by named program fragments, an interpreter, and a fragment library system. The major component of the environmentis a full-screen editor, which allows both structure and text editing. In structure mode the editor guarantees prevention of both syntactic and semantic errors, whereas in textual mode it guarantees their immediate recognition. PSG editors employ a novel algorithm for incremental semantic analysis which is based on unification.The algorithm will immediately detect semantic errors even in incomplete program fragments. The dynamic semantics of the language are defined in denotational style using a functional language based on the lambda calculus. Program fragments are compiled to terms of the functional language which are executed by an interpreter. The PSG generator has been used to produce environments for Pascal, ALGOL 60, MODULA-2, and the formal language definition language itself.

show abstract

Section: The Definition Of the Syntaxmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…until expr; ifthen + ! if expr then stat [2] (stat[2] ---) ! else, ); equ + CLASS (expr=equ,lt,gt -+ lp,rp) eq CLASS (expr=equ,lt,gt + lp,rp);…”

Section: The Definition Of the Syntaxmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Representation Of Context Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Unification As a Device For Modeling The Joinmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The PSG system: from formal language definitions to interactive programming environments

Bahlke

Snelting

1986

ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst.

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…values can be manipulated at run-time similarly to values of data types, and without loss of efficiency; and q well-formedness of graph type specifications can be decided at compile-time. 4 Examples…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Graph types

Klarlund¹,

Schwartzbach²

1993

Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages - POPL '93

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recursive data structures are abstractions of simple records and pointers. They impose a shape invam"ant, which is verijied at compile-time and exploited to automatically generate code for building, copying, comparing, and traversing values wiihout loss of ejiciency.However, such values are always tree shaped, which is a major obstacle to practical use.We propose a notion of graph types, which allow common shapes, such as doubly-linked lists or threaded trees, to be expressed concisely and efficiently. We dejine regular languages of routing expressions to specify relative addresses of extra pointers in a canonical spanning tree. An eficient algorithm for computing such addresses is developed.We employ a secondorder monadic logic to decide well-formedness of graph type specifications. This logic can also be used for automated reasoning about pointer structures.

show abstract