Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-plnhv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-08-21T11:26:40.469Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Categorical Models of Syntactic Control of Intereference Revisited, Revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2010

Guy McCusker
Guy McCusker
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, University of Bath, United Kingdom BA2 7AY, G.A.McCusker@bath.ac.uk

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The question of what categorical structure is required to give semantics to O‘Hearn et al.'s type system Syntactic Control of Interference Revisited (SCIR) is considered. The previously proposed notion of bireflective model is rejected as being too restrictive to accommodate important concrete models based on game semantics and object spaces; furthermore it is argued that the existing proof-sketch of the important property of coherence for these models is incorrect. A new, more general notion of model is proposed and the coherence property proved.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
LMS Journal of Computation and Mathematics , Volume 10 , 2007 , pp. 176 - 206
Copyright
Copyright © London Mathematical Society 2007

References

1.Barber, A., ‘Dual intuitionistic linear logic’, Tech. Rep. ECS-LFCS-96-347, LFCS, University of Edinburgh, (1996).Google Scholar
2.Bashir, R. E. and Velebil, J., ‘Simultaneously reflective and coreflective subcategories of presheaves’, Theory and Applications of Categories 10 (2002) 410‘423.Google Scholar
3.Freyd, P. J., O'Hearn, P. W., Power, A. J., Takeyama, M., Street, R. and Tennent, R. D., ‘Bireflectivity’, Theoretical Computer Science 228 (1999) 49–76; a preliminary version appeared in the proceedings of MFPS XLCrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Freyd, P. J., O’Hern, P. W., Power, A. J., Takeyama, M. and Tennent, R. D., ‘Bireflectivity’, Mathematical foundations of programming semantics, Eleventh annual conference, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, March 29 - April 1, (1995) (Elsevier, (1995)).Google Scholar
5.Huang, H. and Reddy, U., ‘Type reconstruction for syntactic control of interference’, Glasgow Functional Programming Workshop, BCS Electronic Work shops in Computer Science (1995).Google Scholar
6.Hyland, J.M.E.and Ong, C.-H.L., ‘On full abstraction for PCF: I, II and III’, Information and Computation 162 (2000) 285–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Jones, S. P. and Launchbury, J., ‘State in haskell’, Lisp and Symbolic Computation 8 (1995) 293–341.Google Scholar
8.O’Hearn, P. W., Power, A. J., Takeyama, M. and Tennent, R. D., ‘Syntactic control of interference revisited’, Theoretical Computer Science 228 (1999) 211–252; a preliminary version appeared in the proceedings of MFPSXLCrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Reddy, U.S., ‘Global state considered unnecessary: An introduction to object-based semantics’, Lisp and Symbolic Computation 9 (1996) 7–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Reynolds, J. C., ‘Syntactic control of interference’, Conf. Record 5th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (1978) 39–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Reynolds, J. C., ‘Idealized Algol and its specification logic’, Tools and notions for program construction (ed. N’el, D., Cambridge University Press,1982) 121–161.Google Scholar
12.Swarup, V., Reddy, U. S. and Ireland, E., ‘Assignments for applicative languages’, Proceedings of the 5th ACM Conference on Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architecture (Springer, New York, 1991) 192–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Swarup, V., Reddy, U. S. and Ireland, E., ‘Assignments for applicative languages’, Algol-like languages (ed. O’Hearn, Peter W. and Tennent, Robert D., Birkhaüser, 1997) 235–271.Google Scholar
14.Wall, M., ‘Games for syntactic control of interference’, PhD thesis, University of Sussex, (2005).Google Scholar
15.Yang, H. and Huang, H., ‘Type reconstruction for syntactic control of interference, part 2’, IEEE Computer Society International Conference on Computer Languages (1998), Loyola University, Chicago (IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, (1998) 164–173.Google Scholar