Type-changing rewriting and semantics-preserving transformation

A Rewriting Semantics for Type Inference

When students first learn programming, they often rely on a simple operational model of a program’s behavior to explain how particular features work. Because such models build on their earlier training in algebra, students find them intuitive, even obvious. Students learning type systems, however, have to confront an entirely different notation with a different semantics that many find difficul...

Program Transformation and Rewriting

(nil) = nil sigperm(x :: xs) = append(sigrot(x; x); sigperm(xs)) sigrot(x; nil) = nil sigrot(u; x :: xs)) = cond(issig(u); u :: sigrot(rotate(u); xs); sigrot(rotate(u); xs)) 4.4 Third transformation step Our objective is to get rid of the costly occurrences of append in sigperm. We introduce the new denition: sr(x; y; u) = append(sigrot(x; y); u) and the theorem: The complete denition of sigper...

Transfinite Rewriting Semantics for Term Rewriting Systems

We provide some new results concerning the use of trans-nite rewriting for giving semantics to rewrite systems. We especially (but not only) consider the computation of possibly innnite constructor terms by transsnite rewriting due to their interest in many programming languages. We reconsider the problem of compressing transsnite rewrite sequences into shorter (possibly nite) ones. We also inv...

Semantics, modularity, and rewriting logic

A complete formal semantic description of a practical programming language (such as Java) is likely to be a lengthy document, regardless of which semantic framework is being used. Good modularity of the description is important to the person(s) developing it, to facilitate reuse, change, and extension. Unfortunately, the conventional versions of the major semantic frameworks have rather poor mo...

Modular Rewriting Semantics in Practice