IsaK-Static: A Complete Static Semantics of $$\mathbb {K}$$ 

2018 ◽  
pp. 196-215
Author(s):  
Liyi Li ◽  
Elsa L. Gunter
Keyword(s):  
Static Semantics

The static semantics file

1990 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 33-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Meek
Keyword(s):  
Static Semantics

scholarly journals I Do Not Exist. Problems for Dynamic Semantics

2018 ◽  
pp. 393-414
Author(s):  
Eduardo García Ramírez
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Dynamic Semantics ◽  
Recent Proposal ◽  
Static Semantics ◽  
What Is Said ◽  
Existential Constructions ◽  
The Common

According to dynamic semantics, what is said by an utterance of a sentence is determined by how the common ground is affected by the acceptance of such utterance. It has been claimed that dynamic semantics offers an account of what is said by an utterance in a context that excels that of traditional static semantics. Assertions of negative existential constructions, of the form ‘X does not exist’, are a case in point. These assertions traditionally pose a problem for philosophers of language. A recent proposal, owed to Clapp (2008), argues that static semantics is unable to solve the problem and offers a dynamic semantics account that promises to succeed. In this paper I want to challenge this account and, more generally, the scope of the dynamic semantics framework. I will offer a counterexample, inspired by “answering machine” uses of indexical and demonstrative expressions, to show how dynamic semantics fails.  I conclude by considering the merits of both static and dynamic accounts.

4 Declarations and Bindings

2003 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-66
Author(s):  
SIMON PEYTON JONES
Keyword(s):  
Static Semantics ◽  
Type Classes

4.1 Overview of Types and Classes  404.2 User-Defined datatypes  454.3 Type Classes and Overloading  494.4 Nested Declarations  554.5 Static Semantics of Function and Pattern Bindings  604.6 Kind Inference  66

A Model-Based Concurrent Specification Language over CML: Semantic Foundations

1997 ◽  
Vol 07 (03) ◽  
pp. 329-356
Author(s):  
Maurad Debbabi
Keyword(s):  
Wide Spectrum ◽  
Denotational Semantics ◽  
Specification Language ◽  
Return Of Results ◽  
Static Semantics ◽  
Model Based ◽  
Communication Effects ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Theoretical Foundations ◽  
Spectrum Model

In this paper we address the problem of specification and design of concurrent systems. More accurately, we present the definition of a new specification language that is formal, wide-spectrum, model-based, concurrent, polymorphic and strongly implicitly typed. The language is built upon a concurrent, funtional and imperative programming language: Concurrent ML. Specification aspects are supported thanks to the addition of some specification constructs and also by allowing axioms to ML structures and signatures. The resulting specification language is thus highly expressive though it embodies a restricted number of concepts. We present here the motivations underlying the definition of such a language as well as the design choices. Furthermore, we introduce the specification and development methology and illustrate it on various examples. We will see that many specification styles are allowed: algebraic, applicative, state-based, concurrent applicative and concurrent imperative. We show that the language rests on secure theoretical foundations exemplified by formal syntactic and semantic definitions. The latter consists in a static semantics together with a dynamic semantics. The static semantics reconstructs not only principal types but also minimal side and communication effects. This is done thanks to an extension of the type and effect discipline. The language is also endowed with a dynamic denotational semantics. The underlying model is based on an extension of the acceptance trees model to handle value-passing, communication, assignment, sequencing, return of results and higher order objects.

Principal signatures for higher-order program modules

1994 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 285-335 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mads Tofte
Keyword(s):  
Programming Languages ◽  
Functional Programming ◽  
Operational Semantics ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Principal Type ◽  
Functional Programming Languages ◽  
Standard Ml ◽  
Static Semantics ◽  
Program Modules

AbstractIn this paper we present a language for programming with higher-order modules. The language HML is based on Standard ML in that it provides structures, signatures and functors. In HML, functors can be declared inside structures and specified inside signatures; this is not possible in Standard ML. We present an operational semantics for the static semantics of HML signature expressions, with particular emphasis on the handling of sharing. As a justification for the semantics, we prove a theorem about the existence of principal signatures. This result is closely related to the existence of principal type schemes for functional programming languages with polymorphism.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document