Reasoning about Functions with Effects

Reasoning about Functions with Effects (1997)

by Carolyn Talcott

Venue:	See Gordon and Pitts
Citations:	13 - 1 self

User correction supplied by SystemCorrections

Datum	Value	Source
TITLE	Reasoning about Functions with Effects	user correction - Legacy Corrections
AUTHOR NAME	Carolyn Talcott	SVM HeaderParse 0.1
AUTHOR AFFIL	Department of Computer Science; Stanford University	SVM HeaderParse 0.2
ABSTRACT	ing and using (L-unif) we have that any two lambdas that are everywhere undefined are equivalent. The classic example of an everywhere undefined lambda is Bot 4 = x:app(x:app(x; x); x:app(x; x)) In f , another example of an everywhere undefined lambda is the "do-forever" loop. Do 4 = f:Yv(Dox:Do(f(x)) By the recursive definition, for any lambda ' and value v Do(')(v) \Gamma!Ø Do(')('(v)) Reasoning about Functions with Effects 21 In f , either '(v) \Gamma!Ø v 0 for some v 0 or '(v) is undefined. In the latter case the computation is undefined since the redex is undefined. In the former case, the computation reduces to Do(')(v 0 ) and on we go. The argument for undefinedness of Bot relies only on the (app) rule and will be valid in any uniform semantics. In contrast the argument for undefinedness of Do(') relies on the (fred.isdef) property of f . Functional Streams We now illustrate the use of (L-unif-sim) computation to reason about streams represented as functions ...	user correction - Legacy Corrections
YEAR	1997	user correction - Legacy Corrections
VENUE	See Gordon and Pitts	INFERENCE
VENUE TYPE	CONFERENCE	INFERENCE
PAGES	347--390	INFERENCE
CITATIONS	61 found	ParsCit 1.0