Equivalence of two Fixed-Point Semantics for Definitional Higher-Order Logic Programs

Two distinct research approaches have been proposed for assigning a purely extensional semantics to higher-order logic programming. The former approach uses classical domain theoretic tools while the latter builds on a fixed-point construction defined on a syntactic instantiation of the source program. The relationships between these two approaches had not been investigated until now. In this paper we demonstrate that for a very broad class of programs, namely the class of definitional programs introduced by W. W. Wadge, the two approaches coincide (with respect to ground atoms that involve symbols of the program). On the other hand, we argue that if existential higher-order variables are allowed to appear in the bodies of program rules, the two approaches are in general different. The results of the paper contribute to a better understanding of the semantics of higher-order logic programming.Comment: In Proceedings FICS 2015, arXiv:1509.0282

Trustworthy Refactoring via Decomposition and Schemes: A Complex Case Study

Widely used complex code refactoring tools lack a solid reasoning about the correctness of the transformations they implement, whilst interest in proven correct refactoring is ever increasing as only formal verification can provide true confidence in applying tool-automated refactoring to industrial-scale code. By using our strategic rewriting based refactoring specification language, we present the decomposition of a complex transformation into smaller steps that can be expressed as instances of refactoring schemes, then we demonstrate the semi-automatic formal verification of the components based on a theoretical understanding of the semantics of the programming language. The extensible and verifiable refactoring definitions can be executed in our interpreter built on top of a static analyser framework.Comment: In Proceedings VPT 2017, arXiv:1708.0688

Singular and Plural Functions for Functional Logic Programming

Functional logic programming (FLP) languages use non-terminating and non-confluent constructor systems (CS's) as programs in order to define non-strict non-determi-nistic functions. Two semantic alternatives have been usually considered for parameter passing with this kind of functions: call-time choice and run-time choice. While the former is the standard choice of modern FLP languages, the latter lacks some properties---mainly compositionality---that have prevented its use in practical FLP systems. Traditionally it has been considered that call-time choice induces a singular denotational semantics, while run-time choice induces a plural semantics. We have discovered that this latter identification is wrong when pattern matching is involved, and thus we propose two novel compositional plural semantics for CS's that are different from run-time choice. We study the basic properties of our plural semantics---compositionality, polarity, monotonicity for substitutions, and a restricted form of the bubbling property for constructor systems---and the relation between them and to previous proposals, concluding that these semantics form a hierarchy in the sense of set inclusion of the set of computed values. We have also identified a class of programs characterized by a syntactic criterion for which the proposed plural semantics behave the same, and a program transformation that can be used to simulate one of them by term rewriting. At the practical level, we study how to use the expressive capabilities of these semantics for improving the declarative flavour of programs. We also propose a language which combines call-time choice and our plural semantics, that we have implemented in Maude. The resulting interpreter is employed to test several significant examples showing the capabilities of the combined semantics. To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP)Comment: 53 pages, 5 figure

Functional Big-step Semantics

When doing an interactive proof about a piece of software, it is important that the underlying programming language’s semantics does not make the proof unnecessarily difficult or unwieldy. Both smallstep and big-step semantics are commonly used, and the latter is typically given by an inductively defined relation. In this paper, we consider an alternative: using a recursive function akin to an interpreter for the language. The advantages include a better induction theorem, less duplication, accessibility to ordinary functional programmers, and the ease of doing symbolic simulation in proofs via rewriting. We believe that this style of semantics is well suited for compiler verification, including proofs of divergence preservation. We do not claim the invention of this style of semantics: our contribution here is to clarify its value, and to explain how it supports several language features that might appear to require a relational or small-step approach. We illustrate the technique on a simple imperative language with C-like for-loops and a break statement, and compare it to a variety of other approaches. We also provide ML and lambda-calculus based examples to illustrate its generality

Research in mathematical theory of computation

Research progress in the following areas is reviewed: (1) new version of computer program LCF (logic for computable functions) including a facility to search for proofs automatically; (2) the description of the language PASCAL in terms of both LCF and in first order logic; (3) discussion of LISP semantics in LCF and attempt to prove the correctness of the London compilers in a formal way; (4) design of both special purpose and domain independent proving procedures specifically program correctness in mind; (5) design of languages for describing such proof procedures; and (6) the embedding of ideas in the first order checker