### Table 8. Requirements for ACL semantics.

"... In PAGE 22: ... Declare. Note that the ACL semantics proposed has solved some of the problems summarized in Table8 . The crucial point is that MLTLI offers a grounded... ..."

### Table 1: Operational Semantics.

1998

"... In PAGE 4: ... The set of evaluation contexts is given by E ::= [ ] j (E e)r j (v E)r j (proji E)r j (inji E) j hE; ei j hv; Ei j (protectir E) j (case E of inj1(x) ) e1 j inj2(x) ) e2)r Note that this de nes a left-to-right, call-by-value, deterministic reduction strategy. The basic rules for the operational semantics appear in Table1 . In the rules, we use an operation for increasing the security properties on terms: given = (r; ir), ir0 is the security property (r t ir0; ir t ir0).... In PAGE 7: ... A state is a nite partial function from typed locations ls into values. The starting point of the operational semantics for the extended calculus is the collection of simple redex rules given previously in Table1 . Again we lift these rules to arbitrary terms via e ! e0 E[e] ! E[e0] where E is understood to be the extended de nition of contexts given above.... In PAGE 14: ...heorem A.5 (Subject Reduction) Suppose ; ` e : s and e ! e0. Then ; ` e0 : s. Proof: Note that e = E[e1], where e1 ! e2 via one of the rules in Table1 , and e0 = E[e2]. A simple induction on evaluation contexts, using Lemma A.... ..."

Cited by 192

### Table 1: Operational Semantics.

in Abstract

"... In PAGE 4: ... The set of evaluation contexts is given by E ::= [ ] j (Ee) r j (vE) r j (proj i E) r j (inj i E) jhE;;ei jhv;;Ei j (protect ir E) j (case E of inj 1 (x) ) e 1 j inj 2 (x) ) e 2 ) r Note that this de nes a left-to-right, call-by-value, deterministic reduction strategy. The basic rules for the operational semantics appear in Table1 . In the rules, we use an operation for increasing the security properties on terms: given =(r;;ir), ir 0 is the security property(r t ir 0 ;;irt ir 0 ).... In PAGE 7: ... A state is a nite partial function from typed locations l s into values. The starting point of the operational semantics for the extended calculus is the collection of simple redex rules given previously in Table1 . Again we lift these rules to arbitrary terms via e ! e 0 E[e] ! E[e 0 ] where E is understood to be the extended de nition of contexts given above.... In PAGE 14: ... Then ;;`e 0 : s. Proof: Note that e = E[e 1 ], where e 1 ! e 2 via one of the rules in Table1 , and e 0 = E[e 2 ]. A simple induction on evaluation contexts, using Lemma A.... ..."

### Table 2: Semantics of processes.

1997

"... In PAGE 12: ... Table 1: Semantics of declarations. dom([ ]) =def ; [[ ]](X) =def :[[ ]](X) if X 2 dom( ) [[ [Y b = E]]](X) =def ( E if X = Y [[ ]](X) if X 6 = Y; X 2 dom( ) [[ r]](X) =def 8 gt; lt; gt; : [[ ]](X) if X 2 dom( ) ? dom(r) [[ ]](X)+[[r]](X) if X 2 dom( ) \ dom(r) [[r]](X) if X 2 dom(r) ? dom( ) P is given the operational semantics in Table2 , by induction on the structure of a process, as usual; [[ ]](X)f g Y: = e Y g denotes simultaneous substitution of all constants Y in [[ ]](X) by their corresponding xed points Y: . Report No.... ..."

Cited by 6

### Table 2: Semantics of processes.

1997

"... In PAGE 12: ... Table 1: Semantics of declarations. dom([ ]) =def ; [[ ]](X) =def :[[ ]](X) if X 2 dom( ) [[ [Y b = E]]](X) =def ( E if X = Y [[ ]](X) if X 6 = Y; X 2 dom( ) [[ r]](X) =def 8 gt; lt; gt; : [[ ]](X) if X 2 dom( ) ? dom(r) [[ ]](X)+[[r]](X) if X 2 dom( ) \ dom(r) [[r]](X) if X 2 dom(r) ? dom( ) P is given the operational semantics in Table2 , by induction on the structure of a process, as usual; [[ ]](X)f g Y: = e Y g denotes simultaneous substitution of all constants Y in [[ ]](X) by their corresponding xed points Y: . Report No.... ..."

Cited by 6

### Table 1. Operational Semantics

"... In PAGE 10: ... When one of the previous transitions res, then an actor becomes faulty and therefore will not be able to do nothing from that point on. Note that, consistent with the rules Send and Receive ( Table1 ), only correct actors are able to send and receive messages. 4.... ..."

Cited by 3

### Table 1. Operational Semantics

2002

"... In PAGE 10: ... When one of the previous transitions fires, then an actor becomes faulty and therefore will not be able to do nothing from that point on. Note that, consistent with the rules Send and Receive ( Table1 ), only correct actors are able to send and receive messages. 4.... ..."

### Table 5: Syntax and Semantics Results

1992

"... In PAGE 4: ... Otherwise, it was marked as no opinion. Table5 shows the results of these experiments. We ran them two ways: once using syntactic con- straints alone and again using both syntactic and semantic constraints.... In PAGE 4: ... The no opinion cases were evenly split between repairs and false positives in both tests.The main points to be noted from Table5 are that with syntax alone, the system is quite ac- curate in detecting repairs, and with syntax and semantics working together, it is accurate at de- tecting false positives. However, since the coverage... ..."

Cited by 84