Total parser combinators

Danielsson, Nils Anders

doi:10.1145/1932681.1863585

Cited by 28 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is an alternative, intrinsic approach to the problem of termination, which is, for instance, used by Danielsson [DN08,Dan10], as mentioned in the previous section. They develop a library of parser combinators and use the type system of the host language -in this case, Agda -to restrict the parser combinators to well-formed ones.…”

Section: Discussion and Future Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Danielsson [Dan10] develops a library of parser combinators (see Hutton [Hut92]) with termination guarantees in the dependently typed functional programming language Agda [Agd] (see also joined work with Norell [DN08]). The main difference in comparison with our work is that Danielsson provides a library of combinators, whereas we aim at a parser generator for PEG grammars (though at the moment we only have an interpreter).…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

TRX: A Formally Verified Parser Interpreter

Koprowski¹,

Binsztok²

2011

Logical Methods in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Parsing is an important problem in computer science and yet surprisingly little attention has been devoted to its formal verification. In this paper, we present TRX: a parser interpreter formally developed in the proof assistant Coq, capable of producing formally correct parsers. We are using parsing expression grammars (PEGs), a formalism essentially representing recursive descent parsing, which we consider an attractive alternative to context-free grammars (CFGs). From this formalization we can extract a parser for an arbitrary PEG grammar with the warranty of total correctness, i.e., the resulting parser is terminating and correct with respect to its grammar and the semantics of PEGs; both properties formally proven in Coq.

show abstract

Section: Discussion and Future Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

TRX: A Formally Verified Parser Interpreter

Koprowski¹,

Binsztok²

2011

Logical Methods in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Section 6 shows that it works for arbitrary unary containers, defined in the style of Abbott et al [1]; this includes containers with infinite values, such as infinite streams. -The definition works well in mechanised proofs, and has been used in practice: I used it to state and formally prove many properties of a parser combinator library [6].…”

Section: Herementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a previous paper I used the definitions of bag and set equivalence given above in order to state and formally prove properties of a parser combinator library [6]. That paper did not discuss bijectional reasoning, did not discuss alternative definitions of bag equivalence such as ≈ bag , and did not define bag and set equivalence for arbitrary containers, so the overlap with the present paper is very small.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bag Equivalence via a Proof-Relevant Membership Relation

Danielsson

2012

Interactive Theorem Proving

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Two lists are bag equivalent if they are permutations of each other, i.e. if they contain the same elements, with the same multiplicity, but perhaps not in the same order. This paper describes how one can define bag equivalence as the presence of bijections between sets of membership proofs. This definition has some desirable properties:-Many bag equivalences can be proved using a flexible form of equational reasoning. -The definition generalises easily to arbitrary unary containers, including types with infinite values, such as streams. -By using a slight variation of the definition one gets set equivalence instead, i.e. equality up to order and multiplicity. Other variations give the subset and subbag preorders. -The definition works well in mechanised proofs.

show abstract

“…I am currently turning to it whenever I have a problem with guardedness; see and Danielsson (2010b) for some examples not included in this paper.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beating the Productivity Checker Using Embedded Languages

Danielsson¹

EPiC Series in Computing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some total languages, like Agda and Coq, allow the use of guarded corecursion to construct infinite values and proofs. Guarded corecursion is a form of recursion in which arbitrary recursive calls are allowed, as long as they are guarded by a coinductive constructor. Guardedness ensures that programs are productive, i.e. that every finite prefix of an infinite value can be computed in finite time. However, many productive programs are not guarded, and it can be nontrivial to put them in guarded form. This paper gives a method for turning a productive program into a guarded program. The method amounts to defining a problem-specific language as a data type, writing the program in the problemspecific language, and writing a guarded interpreter for this language.

show abstract

Total parser combinators

Cited by 28 publications

References 32 publications

TRX: A Formally Verified Parser Interpreter

TRX: A Formally Verified Parser Interpreter

Bag Equivalence via a Proof-Relevant Membership Relation

Beating the Productivity Checker Using Embedded Languages

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About