The theory of cut-free sequent proofs has been used to motivate and justify the design of a number of logic programming languages. Two such languages, λProlog and its linear logic refinement, Lolli [12], provide data types, higher-order programming) but lack primitives for concurrency. The logic programming language, LO (Linear Objects) [2] provides for concurrency but lacks abstraction mechanisms. In this paper we present Forum, a logic programming presentation of all of linear logic that modularly extends the languages λProlog, Lolli, and LO. Forum, therefore, allows specifications to incorporate both abstractions and concurrency. As a meta-language, Forum greatly extends the expressiveness of these other logic programming languages. To illustrate its expressive strength, we specify in Forum a sequent calculus proof system and the operational semantics of a functional programming language that incorporates such nonfunctional features as counters and references. 1

The theory of cut-free sequent proofs has been used to motivate and justify the design of a number of logic programming languages. Two such languages, λProlog and its linear logic refinement, Lolli [15], provide for various forms of abstraction (modules, abstract data types, and higher-order programming) but lack primitives for concurrency. The logic programming language, LO (Linear Objects) [2] provides some primitives for concurrency but lacks abstraction mechanisms. In this paper we present Forum, a logic programming presentation of all of linear logic that modularly extends λProlog, Lolli, and LO. Forum, therefore, allows specifications to incorporate both abstractions and concurrency. To illustrate the new expressive strengths of Forum, we specify in it a sequent calculus proof system and the operational semantics of a programming language that incorporates references and concurrency. We also show that the meta theory of linear logic can be used to prove properties of the objectlanguages specified in Forum.

Intuitionistic and linear logics can be used to specify the operational semantics of transition systems in various ways. We consider here two encodings: one uses linear logic and maps states of the transition system into formulas, and the other uses intuitionistic logic and maps states into terms. In both cases, it is possible to relate transition paths to proofs in sequent calculus. In neither encoding, however, does it seem possible to capture properties, such as simulation and bisimulation, that need to consider all possible transitions or all possible computation paths. We consider augmenting both intuitionistic and linear logics with a proof theoretical treatment of definitions. In both cases, this addition allows proving various judgments concerning simulation and bisimulation (especially for noetherian transition systems). We also explore the use of infinite proofs to reason about infinite sequences of transitions. Finally, combining definitions and induction into sequent calculus proofs makes it possible to reason more richly about properties of transition systems completely within the formal setting of sequent calculus.

Most conventional programming languages have direct methods for representing first-order terms (say, via concrete datatypes in ML). If it is necessary to represent structures containing bound variables, such as λ-terms, formulas, types, or proofs, these must first be mapped into first-order terms, and then a significant number of auxiliary procedures must be implemented to manage bound variable names, check for free occurrences, do substitution, test for equality modulo alphaconversion, etc. We shall show how the applicative core of the ML programming language can be enhanced so that λ-terms can be represented more directly and so that the enhanced language, called MLλ, provides a more elegant method of manipulating bound variables within data structures. In fact, the names of bound variables will not be accessible to the MLλ programmer. This extension to ML involves the following: introduction of the new type constructor ’a => ’b for the type of λ-terms formed by abstracting a parameter of type ’a out of a term of type ’b; a very restricted and simple form of higher-order pattern matching; a method for extending a given data structure with a new constructor; and, a method for extending function definitions to handle such new constructors. We present several examples of MLλ programs. 1

This is a revised version os a paper appearing at the

An Extension to ML to Handle Bound Variables