Composing Programming Languages by Combining Action-Semantics Modules

This article demonstrates a method for composing a programming language by combining action-semantics modules. Each module is defined separately, and then a programming-language module is defined by combining existing modules. This method enables the language designer to gradually develop a language by defining, selecting and combining suitable modules. The resulting modular structure is substantially different from that previously employed in action-semantic descriptions. It also discusses how to resolve the conflicts that may arise when combining modules, and indicates some advantages that action semantics has over other approaches in this respect

Exploiting Labels in Structural Operational Semantics

Structural Operational Semantics (SOS) allows transitions to be labelled. This is fully exploited in SOS descriptions of concurrent systems, but usually not at all in conventional descriptions of sequential programming languages. This paper shows how the use of labels can provide significantly simpler and more modular descriptions of programming languages. However, the full power of labels is obtained only when the set of labels is made into a category, as in the recently-proposed MSOS variant of SOS

Maude Object-Oriented Action Tool

MAIDL, André Murbach; CARVILHE, Claudio; MUSICANTE, Martin A. Maude Object-Oriented Action Tool. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science. [S.l:s.n], 2008.Object-Oriented Action Semantics (OOAS) incorporates object-oriented concepts to the Action Semantics formalism. Its main goal is to obtain more readable and reusable semantics specifications. Moreover, it supports syntax-independent specifications, due to the way classes are written. Maude Object-Oriented Action Tool (MOOAT) is an executable environment for Object-Oriented Action Semantics implemented as a conservative extension of Full Maude and Maude MSOS Tool (MMT). The Modular SOS of Action Notation has been implemented using MMT transitions and Full Maude has been used to implement the Classes Notation. The syntax created by MOOAT is fairly similar to the original Object-Oriented Action Semantics syntax. In addition to it, the tool combines the modularity aspects observed in the object-oriented approach with the efficient execution and analysis of the Maude system. We use MOOAT to describe syntaxindependent specifications of programming languages. In this way, we show how Constructive Object-Oriented Action Semantics (COOAS) may be achieved as a combination between Object-Oriented Action Semantics and Constructive Action Semantics (CAS) using MOOAT, in order to increase the modularity aspects observed in the object-oriented formalism. This paper reports on the development of Maude Object-Oriented Action Tool and its application to the formal specification of programming languages

Type Checking Semantic Functions in ASDF

When writing semantic descriptions of programming languages, it is convenient to have tools for checking the descriptions. With frameworks that use inductively defined semantic functions to map programs to their denotations, we would like to check that the semantic functions result in denotations with certain properties. In this paper we present a type system for a modular style of the action semantic framework that, given signatures of all the semantic functions used in a semantic equation defining a semantic function, performs a soft type check on the action in the semantic equation. We introduce types for actions that describe different properties of the actions, like the type of data they expect and produce, whether they can fail or have side effects, etc. A type system for actions which uses these new action types is presented. Using the new action types in the signatures of semantic functions, the language describer can assert properties of semantic functions and have the assertions checked by an implementation of the type system. The type system has been implemented for use in connection with the recently developed formalism ASDF. The formalism supports writing language definitions by combining modules that describe single language constructs. This is possible due to the inherent modularity in ASDF. We show how we manage to preserve the modularity and still perform specialised type checks for each module

Formal Islands

Motivated by the proliferation and usefulness of Domain Specific Languages as well as the demand in enriching well established languages by high level capabilities like pattern matching or strategic rewriting, we introduce the \emph{Formal Islands} framework. The main idea consists to integrate, in existing programs, formally defined parts called Islands, on which proofs and tests can be meaningfully developed. Then, Formal Islands could be safely dissolved into their hosting language to be transparently integrated in the existing user environment. The paper presents this generic framework and shows that the properties valid on the formal islands are also valid on the corresponding dissolved host codes. Formal Islands can be used as a general methodology to develop new DSL and we show that language extensions like sqlj ---embedding sql capabilities in Java ---, or Tom ---a Java language extension allowing for pattern matching and rewriting---are indeed Islands and they can therefore be used for formal software developments

Reusable Components of Semantic Specifications

Semantic specifications of programming languages typically have poor modularity. This hinders reuse of parts of the semantics of one language when specifying a different language – even when the two languages have many constructs in common – and evolution of a language may require major reformulation of its semantics. Such drawbacks have discouraged language developers from using formal semantics to document their designs. In the PLanCompS project, we have developed a component-based approach to semantics. Here, we explain its modularity aspects, and present an illustrative case study: a component-based semantics for Caml Light. We have tested the correctness of the semantics by running programs on an interpreter generated from the semantics, comparing the output with that produced on the standard implementation of the language. Our approach provides good modularity, facilitates reuse, and should support co-evolution of languages and their formal semantics. It could be particularly useful in connection with domain-specific languages and language-driven software development