Reusable components of semantic specifications

Churchill, Martin; Mosses, Peter D.; Torrini, Paolo

doi:10.1145/2584469.2577099

Cited by 5 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For selected language constructs, we give conceptual explanations of the funcons involved in their translations, and present the MSOS specifications of the semantics of the funcons. We have made the complete case study available online [12]. The PLanCompS project [55] is carrying out two further major case studies to demonstrate the extent to which funcons can be reused in specifications of different languages.…”

Section: Fundamental Constructs (Funcons)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reusable Components of Semantic Specifications

Churchill¹,

Mosses²,

Sculthorpe³

et al. 2015

Transactions on Aspect-Oriented Software Development XII

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Semantic specifications of programming languages typically have poor modularity. This hinders reuse of parts of the semantics of one language when specifying a different language -even when the two languages have many constructs in common -and evolution of a language may require major reformulation of its semantics. Such drawbacks have discouraged language developers from using formal semantics to document their designs. In the PLanCompS project, we have developed a component-based approach to semantics. Here, we explain its modularity aspects, and present an illustrative case study: a component-based semantics for Caml Light. We have tested the correctness of the semantics by running programs on an interpreter generated from the semantics, comparing the output with that produced on the standard implementation of the language. Our approach provides good modularity, facilitates reuse, and should support co-evolution of languages and their formal semantics. It could be particularly useful in connection with domain-specific languages and language-driven software development.

show abstract

Section: Fundamental Constructs (Funcons)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reusable Components of Semantic Specifications

Churchill¹,

Mosses²,

Sculthorpe³

et al. 2015

Transactions on Aspect-Oriented Software Development XII

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another approach is to represent the result of name resolution by means of reference attributes, direct pointers from the uses of a name to its definition [19]. Semantics engineering approaches to name binding vary from first-order representation with substitution [28], to explicit or implicit environment propagation [41,36,9], to higher-order abstract syntax [8]. Furthermore, some approaches use a nameless representation (De Bruijn index) of bound variables to uniquely represent terms modulo alpha equivalence [2].…”

Section: Name Bindingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our current design of DynSem is based on the framework of implicitly-modular structural operational semantics (I-MSOS) developed by Mosses et al [36,9]. Fig.…”

Section: Dynamic Semanticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…• Semantics frameworks such as PLT Redex [17], K [31], and I-MSOS [37,9] support separation of concerns in specification of dynamic semantics. The main goal is the formalization and documentation of the dynamic semantics of programming languages or models of full-fledged languages.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…• The DynSem language for the specification of operational semantics (Section 4.4), based on the work on modular operational semantics by Mosses [36,9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Language Designer's Workbench

Visser

Wachsmuth

Tolmach

et al. 2014

Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Symposium on New Ideas, New Paradigms, and Reflections on Programming &Amp; Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The realization of a language design requires multiple artifacts that redundantly encode the same information. This entails significant effort for language implementors, and often results in late detection of errors in language definitions. In this paper we present a proof-of-concept language designer's workbench that supports generation of IDEs, interpreters, and verification infrastructure from a single source. This constitutes a first milestone on the way to a system that fully automates language implementation and verification.

show abstract

Formalising Executable Specifications of Low-Level Systems

Torrini

Nowak

Jomaa

et al. 2018

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Formal models of low-level applications rely often on the distinction between executable layer and underlying hardware abstraction. This is also the case for the model of Pip, a separation kernel formalised and verified in Coq using a shallow embedding. DEC is a deeply embedded imperative typed language with primitive recursion and specified in terms of small-step semantics, which we developed in Coq as a reified counterpart of the shallow embedding used for Pip. In this paper, we introduce DEC and its semantics, we present its interpreter based on the type soundness proof and extracted to Haskell, we introduce a Hoare logic to reason about DEC code, and we use this logic to verify properties of Pip as a case study, comparing the new proofs with those based on the shallow embedding. Notably DEC can import shallow specifications as external functions, thus allowing for reuse of the abstract hardware model. 1 2

show abstract

Reusable components of semantic specifications

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Reusable Components of Semantic Specifications

Reusable Components of Semantic Specifications

A Language Designer's Workbench

Formalising Executable Specifications of Low-Level Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About