Results 1  10
of
73
On understanding types, data abstraction, and polymorphism
 ACM COMPUTING SURVEYS
, 1985
"... Our objective is to understand the notion of type in programming languages, present a model of typed, polymorphic programming languages that reflects recent research in type theory, and examine the relevance of recent research to the design of practical programming languages. Objectoriented languag ..."
Abstract

Cited by 767 (15 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Our objective is to understand the notion of type in programming languages, present a model of typed, polymorphic programming languages that reflects recent research in type theory, and examine the relevance of recent research to the design of practical programming languages. Objectoriented languages provide both a framework and a motivation for exploring the interaction among the concepts of type, data abstraction, and polymorphism, since they extend the notion of type to data abstraction and since type inheritance is an important form of polymorphism. We develop a λcalculusbased model for type systems that allows us to explore these interactions in a simple setting, unencumbered by complexities of production programming languages. The evolution of languages from untyped universes to monomorphic and then polymorphic type systems is reviewed. Mechanisms for polymorphism such as overloading, coercion, subtyping, and parameterization are examined. A unifying framework for polymorphic type systems is developed in terms of the typed λcalculus augmented to include binding of types by quantification as well as binding of values by abstraction. The typed λcalculus is augmented by universal quantification to model generic functions with type parameters, existential quantification and packaging (information hiding) to model abstract data types, and
The Foundation of a Generic Theorem Prover
 Journal of Automated Reasoning
, 1989
"... Isabelle [28, 30] is an interactive theorem prover that supports a variety of logics. It represents rules as propositions (not as functions) and builds proofs by combining rules. These operations constitute a metalogic (or `logical framework') in which the objectlogics are formalized. Isabell ..."
Abstract

Cited by 423 (47 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Isabelle [28, 30] is an interactive theorem prover that supports a variety of logics. It represents rules as propositions (not as functions) and builds proofs by combining rules. These operations constitute a metalogic (or `logical framework') in which the objectlogics are formalized. Isabelle is now based on higherorder logic  a precise and wellunderstood foundation. Examples illustrate use of this metalogic to formalize logics and proofs. Axioms for firstorder logic are shown sound and complete. Backwards proof is formalized by metareasoning about objectlevel entailment. Higherorder logic has several practical advantages over other metalogics. Many proof techniques are known, such as Huet's higherorder unification procedure. Key words: higherorder logic, higherorder unification, Isabelle, LCF, logical frameworks, metareasoning, natural deduction Contents 1 History and overview 2 2 The metalogic M 4 2.1 Syntax of the metalogic ......................... 4 2.2 ...
Typeful programming
, 1989
"... There exists an identifiable programming style based on the widespread use of type information handled through mechanical typechecking techniques. This typeful programming style is in a sense independent of the language it is embedded in; it adapts equally well to functional, imperative, objectorie ..."
Abstract

Cited by 139 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
There exists an identifiable programming style based on the widespread use of type information handled through mechanical typechecking techniques. This typeful programming style is in a sense independent of the language it is embedded in; it adapts equally well to functional, imperative, objectoriented, and algebraic programming, and it is not incompatible with relational and concurrent programming. The main purpose of this paper is to show how typeful programming is best supported by sophisticated type systems, and how these systems can help in clarifying programming issues and in adding power and regularity to languages. We start with an introduction to the notions of types, subtypes and polymorphism. Then we introduce a general framework, derived in part from constructive logic, into which most of the known type systems can be accommodated and extended. The main part of the paper shows how this framework can be adapted systematically to cope with actual programming constructs. For concreteness we describe a particular programming language with advanced features; the emphasis here is on the combination of subtyping and polymorphism. We then discuss how typing concepts apply to large programs, made of collections of modules, and very large programs, made of collections of large programs. We also sketch how typing applies to system programming; an area which by nature escapes rigid typing. In summary, we compare the most common programming styles, suggesting that many of them are compatible with, and benefit from, a typeful discipline.
The Theory of LEGO  A Proof Checker for the Extended Calculus of Constructions
, 1994
"... LEGO is a computer program for interactive typechecking in the Extended Calculus of Constructions and two of its subsystems. LEGO also supports the extension of these three systems with inductive types. These type systems can be viewed as logics, and as meta languages for expressing logics, and LEGO ..."
Abstract

Cited by 69 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
LEGO is a computer program for interactive typechecking in the Extended Calculus of Constructions and two of its subsystems. LEGO also supports the extension of these three systems with inductive types. These type systems can be viewed as logics, and as meta languages for expressing logics, and LEGO is intended to be used for interactively constructing proofs in mathematical theories presented in these logics. I have developed LEGO over six years, starting from an implementation of the Calculus of Constructions by G erard Huet. LEGO has been used for problems at the limits of our abilities to do formal mathematics. In this thesis I explain some aspects of the metatheory of LEGO's type systems leading to a machinechecked proof that typechecking is decidable for all three type theories supported by LEGO, and to a verified algorithm for deciding their typing judgements, assuming only that they are normalizing. In order to do this, the theory of Pure Type Systems (PTS) is extended and f...
Natural Deduction as HigherOrder Resolution
 Journal of Logic Programming
, 1986
"... An interactive theorem prover, Isabelle, is under development. In LCF, each inference rule is represented by one function for forwards proof and another (a tactic) for backwards proof. In Isabelle, each inference rule is represented by a Horn clause. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 54 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
An interactive theorem prover, Isabelle, is under development. In LCF, each inference rule is represented by one function for forwards proof and another (a tactic) for backwards proof. In Isabelle, each inference rule is represented by a Horn clause.
Le Fun: Logic, equations, and Functions
 In Proc. 4th IEEE Internat. Symposium on Logic Programming
, 1987
"... Abstract † We introduce a new paradigm for the integration of functional and logic programming. Unlike most current research, our approach is not based on extending unification to generalpurpose equation solving. Rather, we propose a computation delaying mechanism called residuation. This allows a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 44 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract † We introduce a new paradigm for the integration of functional and logic programming. Unlike most current research, our approach is not based on extending unification to generalpurpose equation solving. Rather, we propose a computation delaying mechanism called residuation. This allows a clear distinction between functional evaluation and logical deduction. The former is based on the λcalculus, and the latter on Horn clause resolution. In clear contrast with equationsolving approaches, our model supports higherorder function evaluation and efficient compilation of both functional and logic programming expressions, without being plagued by nondeterministic termrewriting. In addition, residuation lends itself naturally to process synchronization and constrained search. Besides unification (equations), other residuations may be any grounddecidable goal, such as mutual exclusion (inequations), and comparisons (inequalities). We describe an implementation of the residuation paradigm as a prototype language called Le Fun—Logic, equations, and Functions.
Inductively Defined Types in the Calculus of Constructions
 IN: PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIFTH CONFERENCE ON THE MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS OF PROGRAMMING SEMANTICS. SPRINGER VERLAG LNCS
, 1989
"... We define the notion of an inductively defined type in the Calculus of Constructions and show how inductively defined types can be represented by closed types. We show that all primitive recursive functionals over these inductively defined types are also representable. This generalizes work by Böhm ..."
Abstract

Cited by 43 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We define the notion of an inductively defined type in the Calculus of Constructions and show how inductively defined types can be represented by closed types. We show that all primitive recursive functionals over these inductively defined types are also representable. This generalizes work by Böhm & Berarducci on synthesis of functions on term algebras in the secondorder polymorphiccalculus (F2). We give several applications of this generalization, including a representation of F2programs in F3, along with a definition of functions reify, reflect, and eval for F2 in F3. We also show how to define induction over inductively defined types and sketch some results that show that the extension of the Calculus of Construction by induction principles does not alter the set of functions in its computational fragment, F!. This is because a proof by induction can be realized by primitive recursion, which is already de nable in F!.
Inductive Data Type Systems
 THEORETICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE
, 1997
"... In a previous work (“Abstract Data Type Systems”, TCS 173(2), 1997), the last two authors presented a combined language made of a (strongly normalizing) algebraic rewrite system and a typed λcalculus enriched by patternmatching definitions following a certain format, called the “General Schema”, w ..."
Abstract

Cited by 43 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In a previous work (“Abstract Data Type Systems”, TCS 173(2), 1997), the last two authors presented a combined language made of a (strongly normalizing) algebraic rewrite system and a typed λcalculus enriched by patternmatching definitions following a certain format, called the “General Schema”, which generalizes the usual recursor definitions for natural numbers and similar “basic inductive types”. This combined language was shown to be strongly normalizing. The purpose of this paper is to reformulate and extend the General Schema in order to make it easily extensible, to capture a more general class of inductive types, called “strictly positive”, and to ease the strong normalization proof of the resulting system. This result provides a computation model for the combination of an algebraic specification language based on abstract data types and of a strongly typed functional language with strictly positive inductive types.
Safe, Untrusted Agents using ProofCarrying Code
 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science
, 1998
"... . ProofCarrying Code (PCC) enables a computer system to determine, automatically and with certainty, that program code provided by another system is safe to install and execute without requiring interpretation or runtime checking. PCC has applications in any computing system in which the safe, eff ..."
Abstract

Cited by 32 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
. ProofCarrying Code (PCC) enables a computer system to determine, automatically and with certainty, that program code provided by another system is safe to install and execute without requiring interpretation or runtime checking. PCC has applications in any computing system in which the safe, efficient, and dynamic installation of code is needed. The key idea of ProofCarrying is to attach to the code an easilycheckable proof that its execution does not violate the safety policy of the receiving system. This paper describes the design and a typical implementation of ProofCarrying Code, where the language used for specifying the safety properties is firstorder predicate logic. Examples of safety properties that are covered in this paper are memory safety and compliance with data access policies, resource usage bounds, and data abstraction boundaries. 1 Introduction ProofCarrying Code (PCC) enables a computer system to determine, automatically and with certainty, that program cod...
The Open Verifier framework for foundational verifiers
 In Proc. of the 2nd Workshop on Types in Language Design and Implementation
, 2005
"... We present the Open Verifier approach for verifying untrusted code using customized verifiers. This approach can be viewed as an instance of foundational proofcarrying code where an untrusted program can be checked using the verifier most natural for it instead of using a single generic type system ..."
Abstract

Cited by 28 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We present the Open Verifier approach for verifying untrusted code using customized verifiers. This approach can be viewed as an instance of foundational proofcarrying code where an untrusted program can be checked using the verifier most natural for it instead of using a single generic type system. In this paper we focus on a specialized architecture designed to reduce the burden of expressing both typebased and Hoarestyle verifiers. A new verifier is created by providing an untrusted executable extension module, which can incorporate directly preexisting nonfoundational verifiers based on dataflow analysis or type checking. The extensions control virtually all aspects of the verification by carrying on a dialogue with the Open Verifier using a language designed both to correspond closely to common verification actions and to carry simple adequacy proofs for those actions. We describe the design of the trusted core of the Open Verifier, along with our experience implementing proofcarrying code, typed assembly language, and dataflow or abstract interpretation based verifiers in this unified setting.