The Edinburgh Logical Framework (LF) provides a means to define (or present) logics. It is based on a general treatment of syntax, rules, and proofs by means of a typed -calculus with dependent types. Syntax is treated in a style similar to, but more general than, Martin-Lof's system of arities. The treatment of rules and proofs focuses on his notion of a judgement. Logics are represented in LF via a new principle, the judgements as types principle, whereby each judgement is identified with the type of its proofs. This allows for a smooth treatment of discharge and variable occurrence conditions and leads to a uniform treatment of rules and proofs whereby rules are viewed as proofs of higher-order judgements and proof checking is reduced to type checking. The practical benefit of our treatment of formal systems is that logic-independent tools such as proof editors and proof checkers can be constructed.

. Twelf is a meta-logical framework for the specification, implementation, and meta-theory of deductive systems from the theory of programming languages and logics. It relies on the LF type theory and the judgments-as-types methodology for specification [HHP93], a constraint logic programming interpreter for implementation [Pfe91], and the meta-logic M2 for reasoning about object languages encoded in LF [SP98]. It is a significant extension and complete reimplementation of the Elf system [Pfe94]. Twelf is written in Standard ML and runs under SML of New Jersey and MLWorks on Unix and Window platforms. The current version (1.2) is distributed with a complete manual, example suites, a tutorial in the form of on-line lecture notes [Pfe], and an Emacs interface. Source and binary distributions are accessible via the Twelf home page http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~twelf. 1 The Twelf System The Twelf system is a tool for experimentation in the theory of programming languages and logics. It supports...

We present the linear type theory LLF as the forAppeared in the proceedings of the Eleventh Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science --- LICS'96 (E. Clarke editor), pp. 264--275, New Brunswick, NJ, July 27--30 1996. mal basis for a conservative extension of the LF logical framework. LLF combines the expressive power of dependent types with linear logic to permit the natural and concise representation of a whole new class of deductive systems, namely those dealing with state. As an example we encode a version of Mini-ML with references including its type system, its operational semantics, and a proof of type preservation. Another example is the encoding of a sequent calculus for classical linear logic and its cut elimination theorem. LLF can also be given an operational interpretation as a logic programming language under which the representations above can be used for type inference, evaluation and cut-elimination. 1 Introduction A logical framework is a formal system desig...

Abstract. Type-directed partial evaluation stems from the residualization of arbitrary static values in dynamic contexts, given their type. Its algorithm coincides with the one for coercing asubtype value into a supertype value, which itself coincides with the one of normalization in the-calculus. Type-directed partial evaluation is thus used to specialize compiled, closed programs, given their type. Since Similix, let-insertion is a cornerstone of partial evaluators for callby-value procedural programs with computational e ects. It prevents the duplication of residual computations, and more generally maintains the order of dynamic side e ects in residual programs. This article describes the extension of type-directed partial evaluation to insert residual let expressions. This extension requires the userto annotate arrowtypes with e ect information. It is achieved by delimiting and abstracting control, comparably to continuation-based specialization in direct style. It enables type-directed partial evaluation of e ectful programs (e.g.,ade nitional lambda-interpreter for an imperative language) that are in direct style. The residual programs are in A-normal form. 1

We show that a type system based on the intuitionistic modal logic S4 provides an expressive framework for specifying and analyzing computation stages in the context of functional languages. Our main technical result is a conservative embedding of Nielson & Nielson's two-level functional language in our language Mini-ML, which in

Proof-carrying code is a framework for proving the safety of machine-language programs with a machinecheckable proof. Such proofs have previously defined type-checking rules as part of the logic. We show a universal type framework for proof-carrying code that will allow a code producer to choose a programming language, prove the type rules for that language as lemmas in higher-order logic, then use those lemmas to prove the safety of a particular program. We show how to handle traversal, allocation, and initialization of values in a wide variety of types, including functions, records, unions, existentials, and covariant recursive types. 1

This paper presents the initial results of a project to determine if the techniques of proof-carrying code and certifying compilers can be applied to programming languages of realistic size and complexity. The experiment shows that: (1) it is possible to implement a certifying native-code compiler for a large subset of the Java programming language; (2) the compiler is freely able to apply many standard local and global optimizations; and (3) the PCC binaries it produces are of reasonable size and can be rapidly checked for type safety by a small proof-checker. This paper also presents further evidence that PCC provides several advantages for compiler development. In particular, generating proofs of the target code helps to identify compiler bugs, many of which would have been dicult to discover by testing.

Abstract not found

is permitted for educational or research use on condition that this copyright notice is included in any copy. See back inner page for a list of recent publications in the BRICS Report Series. Copies may be obtained by contacting: BRICS

Abstract not found