Abstract

In an important series of papers [8, 9], Brian Smith has discussed the nature of programs that know about their text and the context in which they are executed. He called this kind of knowledge reflection. Smith proposed a programming language, called 3-LISP, which embodied such self-knowledge in the domain of metacircular interpreters. Every 3-LISP program is interpreted by a metacircular interpreter, also written in 3-LISP. This gives rise to a picture of an infinite tower of metacircular interpreters, each being interpreted by the one above it. Such a metaphor poses a serious challenge for conventional modes of understanding of programming languages. In our earlier work on reflection [4], we showed how a useful species of reflection could be modeled without the use of towers. In this paper, we give a semantic account of the reflective tower. This account is self-contained in the sense that it does not employ reflection to explain reflection. 1. Modeling reflection Reflective programming languages were introduced in [8, 9] to study programs that need knowledge of their own behavior. In artificial intelligence, this kind of knowledge is needed, for example, in programs that must explain their behavior to

Citations

997	The Lambda Calculus: its Syntax and Semantics - Barendregt - 1984
178	A new implementation technique for applicative languages - Turner - 1979
162	Reflection and semantics in a procedural language - Smith - 1982
105	A Syntactic Theory of Sequential Control - Felleisen, Friedman, et al. - 1987
62	The implementation of procedurally reflective languages - Rivières, Smith - 1984
60	Reification: Reflection without metaphysics - Friedman, Wand - 1984
39	Reflection and Semantics - SMITH - 1984
31	Macros-by-example: Deriving syntactic transformations from their specifications - Kohlbecker, Wand - 1987
2	Clinger (eds): Revised 3 Report on the Algorithmic Language Scheme - Rees, Clinger - 1986
1	Syntactic Extensions in a Lexically Scoped Language - Kohlbecker - 1986