DOCSLIB.ORG

98 =, 20 ==, 19 15 Puzzle, 200 1-Adic, 106 5-Tuple, 213 a Priori Scheduling

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
98 =, 20 ==, 19 15 Puzzle, 200 1-Adic, 106 5-Tuple, 213 a Priori Scheduling Index %, 111 apply, 270 |, 98 arithmetic series, 429 =, 20 arity, 62, 79 ==, 19 array, 44, 85 15 puzzle, 200 array maximum, 405 1-adic, 106 array processor, 593 5-tuple, 213 array sorting, 406 a priori scheduling, 588 assembler, 553 abstract array, 53 assembly language, 547, 553 abstract base class, 256 assignment, 313 abstract data type, 52, 231 assoc, 61, 64 abstract grammar, 297 association list, 64 abstract-syntax tree, 296 atom, 31 acceptor, 481 atomic, 16 accumulator, 133 attribute, 229 Ackermann’s function, 109, 129, auxiliary, 132, 284 559 awt (abstract window toolkit), 264 acyclic, 26 backtracking, 387 add, 106 barrel shifter, 121, 544 addition, 106 base class, 246 address, 39 based addressing, 574 adjacency matrix, 41 based indexed addressing, 574 ADT, 52, 231 basis, 101 aggregation, 243 BCD, 331 allocation, 230 beta reduction, 103 ALU, 569 binary adder, 493 Amdahl’s law, 426, 615 binary relation, 25, 64 anchor variable, 404 binary representation, 49 and function, 341 binary search, 464 anonymous function, 67 binary search tree, 465 antiprefix, 62 binary-coded decimal, 331 any, 76 binary-tree representation, 30 append, 63, 83 binding, 21, 313 append predicate, 396 bit, 49 applet, 247 bit vector, 466 applicative-order, 148 622 Index Boole/Shannon expansion combinational switching principle, principle, 352 335 Boolean algebra, 327 commute, 66 bottom up, 211 compiler, 547 bound, 21 compiler generator, 314 braces-as-alternatives, 299 complexity, 421 breadth-first ordering, 142 compose, 272 breadth-first search, 140, 186, 500 compose_list, 85 breadth-first traversal, 179 composition, 71, 72, 243 bucket, 181, 450 computer network, 605 built-in functions in rex, 19 concat, 271 bus structure, 541 concrete, 53 butterfly, 604 concurrency, 585 cache coherency, 605 conditional expression, 112 cache memory, 422 conjunction, 348 caching, 61 connection matrix, 41 calculus, 73 connective, 339 calling conventions, 556 consensus, 371 Cartesian encoding, 331 consensus rule, 369 Cartesian product, 75, 197, 213 consing, 22 cell, 166 constant function, 59 cellular automaton, 594 constructor, 230 chain rule, 73 context-free grammar, 285, 290 channel, 579 controller, 481 child, 586 convolution, 160 Chinese rings puzzle, 200 copy rule, 103 chunk, 238 copying, 261 Church/Turing Hypothesis, 280 countable, 277 CISC, 547 countably-infinite, 277 class, 229 counterexample, 357 classifier, 473, 481 counting principle, 197 client, 229 critical section, 602 client-server, 605 crossover point, 432 clock quantization, 517 cursor, 268 clocked latch, 530 cyclic, 26 closed list, 14, 168 D flip-flop, 518 closure, 272 dag, 46 code factoring, 243 data container, 239 combination lock, 524 database, 381 decoder, 376 Index 623 decoding, 568 domino problems, 613 deep copying, 261 double layer of arguments, 71 defer, 47, 150 double-ended queue, 242 deferred binding, 47 doubly-linked list, 166, 177 define a function, 67 drop, 80, 128 define operator, 20 dynamic programming principle, definite iteration, 281 211 delay, 151, 152 edge-detector, 474 DeMorgan’s laws for quantifiers, edge-triggered, 530 384 effective address, 574 demultiplexer, 375 effort, 606 dense, 466 ellipsis convention, 300 depth-first ordering, 140 empty list, 17, 30 depth-first search, 139, 388 encoder, 376 deque, 239, 242 encoding, 328 dequeue, 239 energy function, 413 dereference, 165 enqueue, 239 derivation tree, 291 enumerate, 60 derived class, 246 enumeration, 60 derives, 292 envelope, 430 deterministic, 191 environment, 21 deterministic acceptor, 500 equal, 108 dictionary, 64 equal lists, 17 difference, 137 equality operator, 19 digit, 49 equation, 60, 112 direct addressing, 572 equational guard, 112 direct memory access, 579 error-correcting code, 332 directed acyclic graph, 46 Euclid’s algorithm, 110 directed graph, 25, 143 Euler’s method, 158 directives, 554 evolutionary development, 230 directory structure, 28 exclusive-or, 341 disjunction, 348 existential quantifier, 384 dispatch, 560 extends, 246 distributed memory, 603 factorial, 133, 202 distribution sorting, 450 factorial program in Lisp, 318 diverge, 149 fail, 97 divide, 59, 128 Fast Fourier Transform, 121 divide-and-conquer principle, 454 Fibonacci function, 210, 559 DMA, 579 Fibonacci sequence, 155 DMUX, 375 field, 54, 449 624 Index file memory, 422 heap invariant, 456 find, 81 heterogeneous list, 22 find_index, 127 hierarchical list, 26 find_indices, 81 higher-order function, 67 finite, 277 higher-order predicate, 79 finite-state automata, 471 histogram, 162 finite-state machine, 471, 610 homogeneous, 16 foldl, 83, 85, 134 Horner’s Rule, 117, 118 foldr, 83, 85, 134 hypercube, 279, 334, 362 forest, 38 hypertext link, 39 fork, 586 identifier, 20 formal polynomial, 52 identity, 65 fractal, 189 if, 149 Fredkin automaton, 596 if function, 341 free variable, 68 iff, 341 full adder, 373 image, 42 function, 58 immutable, 260 functional expression, 67 implementation inheritance, 253 fundamental list-dichotomy, 17, implementing finite-state 100 machines, 514 Game of Life, 595 implies function, 342 gather, 81 imported, 68, 69 gcd, 110, 112 includes, 137 general recursive function, 219 indefinite iteration, 129, 281 generator, 481 indeterminacy, 600 getter, 230 index, 44 glitch, 616 index register, 573 goal, 387 indexed addressing, 573 grammar, 284 indirect addressing, 572 graphical user interface, 162 induction rule, 101 grouping, 303 inductive, 101 guarded rule, 110 inductive argument, 102, 105 Halmos, 276 infinite, 277 Hamming distance, 334 infinite list, 151 handshaking, 575 Infinity, 60 hash function, 181 inheritance, 245 hash table, 181 in-order traversal, 179 hashing, 44, 180, 467 insertion sort, 122, 453 header, 174 instance, 230 heap, 456 instance variable, 231 Index 625 instanceof, 259 leafcount, 24 instruction fetch cycle, 565 left recursion, 305 instruction pointer, 407, 548 leftmost applicative-order, 148 instruction register, 565 length, 101, 171 interface, 132 length, 24 interface inheritance, 253 less_than_or_equal, 108 internal representation of lists, 32 level-order, 179 Internet, 39 lexicographic ordering, 63 interpret, 565 LIFO, 232 interpretation, 379 limit rule, 446 interpreter, 547 linear addressing principle, 44, interrupt, 578 180, 182, 560 interrupt mask register, 579 link, 48 interrupt service routine, 578 linked list, 165 interrupt vector, 578 Lisp, 15 intersection, 137, 537 list, 59, 67 irreducible, 101 list of functions, 69 is a, 252, 253 loader, 548 is_integer, 75 locality, 605 is_number, 75 loop, 154 ISC, 548 loop invariant, 408 ISC internal structure, 567 lower bound, 446 ISCAL, 553 lower-bound, 609 iterated consensus, 369 machine language, 547 iterative deepening, 146 mailbox, 602 Java, 15 make_array, 86 Karnaugh map, 358 map, 66, 67, 76, 84, 86, 116, 271, keep, 80, 84, 128 591 key, 449 mappend, 134 Kleene's Theorem, 506 mapping, 66 knowledge base, 381 maps to, 58 L’Hopital's Rule, 446 Markov algorithm, 219 labeled binary tree, 178 match, 77 labeled directed graph, 40 matrix, 40 labeled-tree interpretation, 28 maximal sub-cubes, 362 lambda calculus, 69, 219 McCarthy's Transformation language, 283, 481 Principle, 204 last, 174 Mealy machine, 473 latch, 528 meaning of an expression, 313 leaf, 26, 88 member, 135 626 Index memory address register, 565 non-terminal, 284 memory data register, 565 non-termination, 60 memory hierarchy, 422 nor, 341 memory protection, 582 normal order, 149 memory-mapped I/O, 561 normzalization, 243 merge sort, 124, 463 NP, 615 message, 603 N-queens problem, 393 message queue, 602 n-tuples, 137 method, 228 null, 11 MIDI, 481 number, 49 MIMD, 597 Number class, 260 minsort, 453 numbering of functions, 340 minterm, 348 numeral, 49 minterm expansion principle, 349 object, 227 mixed radix, 128 Object class, 259 mod, 111, 114, 119 object-oriented programming, 52 modulo, 111 oct-tree, 36 modulo-2 addition, 332 offset, 574 Moore machine, 473 one-to-one, 59 Morse code, 40 open list, 14, 168 multiple-instruction, multiple-data, operating system, 185 597 or function, 341 multiplexor, 121, 354, 540 ordered dictionary, 65 multiplication rule, 438 oriented directed graph, 40 multiply, 128 overload, 62, 133 multiprocessing, 587 over-riding, 246, 247 multipy-by-two, 491 page table, 183, 580 multi-stage interconnect, 604 pages, 183 mutual exclusion, 602 paging memory, 422 mutual recursion, 139 pairs, 70, 75, 161 MUX, 540 parallel, 57 nand, 342 parallel assignment, 205 n-ary, 62 parallel composition, 537 natural number, 106, 151 parallel transfer, 539 new operator, 231, 235 parallelism, 585 nim, 92 parent, 586 nim sum, 93 parity bit, 332 non_zero, 108 parsing, 293 non-deterministic, 191 partial correctness, 407 non-deterministic transition, 498 partial function, 59, 65 Index 627 partial function computed by a principle of locality, 183 TM, 213 principle of modularity, 229 partial recursive function, 219, 280 principle of radix representation, partial_sums, 152 118 pattern, 97, 284 principle of virtual contiguity, 182, peg solitaire, 198 251 peripheral processors, 579 priority queue, 239, 457 permutation, 406, 610 procedural interpretation, 386 phrase-structure grammar, 219, procedure, 58 285, 290 process, 586 pid, 586 process id, 586 pigeon-hole principle, 610 production, 284 pipe, 588, 603 profiling, 426 pipe composition, 153 program compaction principle, 208 pipeline, 72, 580, 591 program counter, 548 pixel, 33 program variables, 202 PLA, 350 programmable logic array, 350 pointer, 11, 32, 45 Prolog, 15, 192, 381 Polylist, 264 Prolog programmers' manifesto, polymorphic, 76, 264 392 polynomial
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Full Functional Verification of Linked Data Structures
    Full Functional Verification of Linked Data Structures Karen Zee Viktor Kuncak Martin C. Rinard MIT CSAIL, Cambridge, MA, USA EPFL, I&C, Lausanne, Switzerland MIT CSAIL, Cambridge, MA, USA ∗ [email protected] viktor.kuncak@epfl.ch [email protected] Abstract 1. Introduction We present the first verification of full functional correctness for Linked data structures such as lists, trees, graphs, and hash tables a range of linked data structure implementations, including muta- are pervasive in modern software systems. But because of phenom- ble lists, trees, graphs, and hash tables. Specifically, we present the ena such as aliasing and indirection, it has been a challenge to de- use of the Jahob verification system to verify formal specifications, velop automated reasoning systems that are capable of proving im- written in classical higher-order logic, that completely capture the portant correctness properties of such data structures. desired behavior of the Java data structure implementations (with the exception of properties involving execution time and/or mem- 1.1 Background ory consumption). Given that the desired correctness properties in- In principle, standard specification and verification approaches clude intractable constructs such as quantifiers, transitive closure, should work for linked data structure implementations. But in prac- and lambda abstraction, it is a challenge to successfully prove the tice, many of the desired correctness properties involve logical generated verification conditions. constructs such transitive closure and
    [Show full text]
  • CSI33 Data Structures
    Outline CSI33 Data Structures Department of Mathematics and Computer Science Bronx Community College December 2, 2015 CSI33 Data Structures Outline Outline 1 Chapter 13: Heaps, Balances Trees and Hash Tables Hash Tables CSI33 Data Structures Chapter 13: Heaps, Balances Trees and Hash TablesHash Tables Outline 1 Chapter 13: Heaps, Balances Trees and Hash Tables Hash Tables CSI33 Data Structures Chapter 13: Heaps, Balances Trees and Hash TablesHash Tables Python Dictionaries Various names are given to the abstract data type we know as a dictionary in Python: Hash (The languages Perl and Ruby use this terminology; implementation is a hash table). Map (Microsoft Foundation Classes C/C++ Library; because it maps keys to values). Dictionary (Python, Smalltalk; lets you "look up" a value for a key). Association List (LISP|everything in LISP is a list, but this type is implemented by hash table). Associative Array (This is the technical name for such a structure because it looks like an array whose 'indexes' in square brackets are key values). CSI33 Data Structures Chapter 13: Heaps, Balances Trees and Hash TablesHash Tables Python Dictionaries In Python, a dictionary associates a value (item of data) with a unique key (to identify and access the data). The implementation strategy is the same in any language that uses associative arrays. Representing the relation between key and value is a hash table. CSI33 Data Structures Chapter 13: Heaps, Balances Trees and Hash TablesHash Tables Python Dictionaries The Python implementation uses a hash table since it has the most efficient performance for insertion, deletion, and lookup operations. The running times of all these operations are better than any we have seen so far.
    [Show full text]
  • CIS 120 Midterm I October 13, 2017 Name (Printed): Pennkey (Penn
    CIS 120 Midterm I October 13, 2017 Name (printed): PennKey (penn login id): My signature below certifies that I have complied with the University of Pennsylvania’s Code of Academic Integrity in completing this examination. Signature: Date: • Do not begin the exam until you are told it is time to do so. • Make sure that your username (a.k.a. PennKey, e.g. stevez) is written clearly at the bottom of every page. • There are 100 total points. The exam lasts 50 minutes. Do not spend too much time on any one question. • Be sure to recheck all of your answers. • The last page of the exam can be used as scratch space. By default, we will ignore anything you write on this page. If you write something that you want us to grade, make sure you mark it clearly as an answer to a problem and write a clear note on the page with that problem telling us to look at the scratch page. • Good luck! 1 1. Binary Search Trees (16 points total) This problem concerns buggy implementations of the insert and delete functions for bi- nary search trees, the correct versions of which are shown in Appendix A. First: At most one of the lines of code contains a compile-time (i.e. typechecking) error. If there is a compile-time error, explain what the error is and one way to fix it. If there is no compile-time error, say “No Error”. Second: even after the compile-time error (if any) is fixed, the code is still buggy—for some inputs the function works correctly and produces the correct BST, and for other inputs, the function produces an incorrect tree.
    [Show full text]
  • Verifying Linked Data Structure Implementations
    Verifying Linked Data Structure Implementations Karen Zee Viktor Kuncak Martin Rinard MIT CSAIL EPFL I&C MIT CSAIL Cambridge, MA Lausanne, Switzerland Cambridge, MA [email protected] viktor.kuncak@epfl.ch [email protected] Abstract equivalent conjunction of properties. By processing each conjunct separately, Jahob can use different provers to es- The Jahob program verification system leverages state of tablish different parts of the proof obligations. This is the art automated theorem provers, shape analysis, and de- possible thanks to formula approximation techniques[10] cision procedures to check that programs conform to their that create equivalent or semantically stronger formulas ac- specifications. By combining a rich specification language cepted by the specialized decision procedures. with a diverse collection of verification technologies, Jahob This paper presents our experience using the Jahob sys- makes it possible to verify complex properties of programs tem to obtain full correctness proofs for a collection of that manipulate linked data structures. We present our re- linked data structure implementations. Unlike systems that sults using Jahob to achieve full functional verification of a are designed to verify partial correctness properties, Jahob collection of linked data structures. verifies the full functional correctness of the data structure implementation. Not only do our results show that such full functional verification is feasible, the verified data struc- 1 Introduction tures and algorithms provide concrete examples that can help developers better understand how to achieve similar results in future efforts. Linked data structures such as lists, trees, graphs, and hash tables are pervasive in modern software systems. But because of phenomena such as aliasing and indirection, it 2 Example has been a challenge to develop automated reasoning sys- tems that are capable of proving important correctness prop- In this section we use a verified association list to demon- erties of such data structures.
    [Show full text]
  • CSCI 2041: Data Types in Ocaml
    CSCI 2041: Data Types in OCaml Chris Kauffman Last Updated: Thu Oct 18 22:43:05 CDT 2018 1 Logistics Assignment 3 multimanager Reading I Manage multiple lists I OCaml System Manual: I Records to track lists/undo Ch 1.4, 1.5, 1.7 I option to deal with editing I Practical OCaml: Ch 5 I Higher-order funcs for easy bulk operations Goals I Post tomorrow I Tuples I Due in 2 weeks I Records I Algebraic / Variant Types Next week First-class / Higher Order Functions 2 Overview of Aggregate Data Structures / Types in OCaml I Despite being an older functional language, OCaml has a wealth of aggregate data types I The table below describe some of these with some characteristics I We have discussed Lists and Arrays at some length I We will now discuss the others Elements Typical Access Mutable Example Lists Homoegenous Index/PatMatch No [1;2;3] Array Homoegenous Index Yes [|1;2;3|] Tuples Heterogeneous PatMatch No (1,"two",3.0) Records Heterogeneous Field/PatMatch No/Yes {name="Sam"; age=21} Variant Not Applicable PatMatch No type letter = A | B | C; Note: data types can be nested and combined in any way I Array of Lists, List of Tuples I Record with list and tuple fields I Tuple of list and Record I Variant with List and Record or Array and Tuple 3 Tuples # let int_pair = (1,2);; val int_pair : int * int = (1, 2) I Potentially mixed data # let mixed_triple = (1,"two",3.0);; I Commas separate elements val mixed_triple : int * string * float = (1, "two", 3.) I Tuples: pairs, triples, quadruples, quintuples, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexandria Manual
    alexandria Manual draft version Alexandria software and associated documentation are in the public domain: Authors dedicate this work to public domain, for the benefit of the public at large and to the detriment of the authors' heirs and successors. Authors intends this dedication to be an overt act of relinquishment in perpetuity of all present and future rights under copyright law, whether vested or contingent, in the work. Authors understands that such relinquishment of all rights includes the relinquishment of all rights to enforce (by lawsuit or otherwise) those copyrights in the work. Authors recognize that, once placed in the public domain, the work may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or oth- erwise exploited by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and in any way, including by methods that have not yet been invented or conceived. In those legislations where public domain dedications are not recognized or possible, Alexan- dria is distributed under the following terms and conditions: Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTIC- ULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
    [Show full text]
  • TAL Recognition in O(M(N2)) Time
    TAL Recognition in O(M(n2)) Time Sanguthevar Rajasekaran Dept. of CISE, Univ. of Florida raj~cis.ufl.edu Shibu Yooseph Dept. of CIS, Univ. of Pennsylvania [email protected] Abstract time needed to multiply two k x k boolean matri- ces. The best known value for M(k) is O(n 2"3vs) We propose an O(M(n2)) time algorithm (Coppersmith, Winograd, 1990). Though our algo- for the recognition of Tree Adjoining Lan- rithm is similar in flavor to those of Graham, Har- guages (TALs), where n is the size of the rison, & Ruzzo (1976), and Valiant (1975) (which input string and M(k) is the time needed were Mgorithms proposed for recognition of Con- to multiply two k x k boolean matrices. text Pree Languages (CFLs)), there are crucial dif- Tree Adjoining Grammars (TAGs) are for- ferences. As such, the techniques of (Graham, et al., malisms suitable for natural language pro- 1976) and (Valiant, 1975) do not seem to extend to cessing and have received enormous atten- TALs (Satta, 1993). tion in the past among not only natural language processing researchers but also al- gorithms designers. The first polynomial 2 Tree Adjoining Grammars time algorithm for TAL parsing was pro- A Tree Adjoining Grammar (TAG) consists of a posed in 1986 and had a run time of O(n6). quintuple (N, ~ U {~}, I, A, S), where Quite recently, an O(n 3 M(n)) algorithm N is a finite set of has been proposed. The algorithm pre- nonterminal symbols, sented in this paper improves the run time is a finite set of terminal symbols disjoint from of the recent result using an entirely differ- N, ent approach.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Answers to Some of the Exercises
    Appendix A Answers to Some of the Exercises Answers for Chapter 2 2. Let f (x) be the number of a 's minus the number of b 's in string x. A string is in the language defined by the grammar just when • f(x) = 1 and • for every proper prefix u of x, f( u) < 1. 3. Let the string be given as array X [O .. N -1] oflength N. We use the notation X ! i, (pronounced: X drop i) for 0:::; i :::; N, to denote the tail of length N - i of array X, that is, the sequence from index ion. (Or: X from which the first i elements have been dropped.) We write L for the language denoted by the grammar. Lk is the language consisting of the catenation of k strings from L. We are asked to write a program for computing the boolean value X E L. This may be written as X ! 0 E L1. The invariant that we choose is obtained by generalizing constants 0 and 1 to variables i and k: P : (X E L = X ! i ELk) /\ 0:::; i :::; N /\ 0:::; k We use the following properties: (0) if Xli] = a, i < N, k > 0 then X ! i E Lk = X ! i + 1 E Lk-1 (1) if Xli] = b, i < N, k ~ 0 then X ! i E Lk = X ! i + 1 E Lk+1 (2) X ! N E Lk = (k = 0) because X ! N = 10 and 10 E Lk for k = 0 only (3) X ! i E LO = (i = N) because (X ! i = 10) = (i = N) and LO = {€} The program is {N ~ O} k := Ij i:= OJ {P} *[ k =1= 0/\ i =1= N -+ [ Xli] = a -+ k := k - 1 404 Appendix A.
    [Show full text]
  • Specification Patterns and Proofs for Recursion Through the Store
    Specification patterns and proofs for recursion through the store Nathaniel Charlton and Bernhard Reus University of Sussex, Brighton Abstract. Higher-order store means that code can be stored on the mutable heap that programs manipulate, and is the basis of flexible soft- ware that can be changed or re-configured at runtime. Specifying such programs is challenging because of recursion through the store, where new (mutual) recursions between code are set up on the fly. This paper presents a series of formal specification patterns that capture increas- ingly complex uses of recursion through the store. To express the neces- sary specifications we extend the separation logic for higher-order store given by Schwinghammer et al. (CSL, 2009), adding parameter passing, and certain recursively defined families of assertions. Finally, we apply our specification patterns and rules to an example program that exploits many of the possibilities offered by higher-order store; this is the first larger case study conducted with logical techniques based on work by Schwinghammer et al. (CSL, 2009), and shows that they are practical. 1 Introduction and motivation Popular \classic" languages like ML, Java and C provide facilities for manipulat- ing code stored on the heap at runtime. With ML one can store newly generated function values in heap cells; with Java one can load new classes at runtime and create objects of those classes on the heap. Even for C, where the code of the program is usually assumed to be immutable, programs can dynamically load and unload libraries at runtime, and use function pointers to invoke their code.
    [Show full text]
  • Modification and Objects Like Myself
    JOURNAL OF OBJECT TECHNOLOGY Online at http://www.jot.fm. Published by ETH Zurich, Chair of Software Engineering ©JOT, 2004 Vol. 3, No. 8, September-October 2004 The Theory of Classification Part 14: Modification and Objects like Myself Anthony J H Simons, Department of Computer Science, University of Sheffield, U.K. 1 INTRODUCTION This is the fourteenth article in a regular series on object-oriented theory for non- specialists. Previous articles have built up models of objects [1], types [2] and classes [3] in the λ-calculus. Inheritance has been shown to extend both types [4] and implementations [5, 6], in the contrasting styles found in the two main families of object- oriented languages. One group is based on (first-order) types and subtyping, and includes Java and C++, whereas the other is based on (second-order) classes and subclassing, and includes Smalltalk and Eiffel. The most recent article demonstrated how generic types (templates) and generic classes can be added to the Theory of Classification [7], using various Stack and List container-types as examples. The last article concentrated just on the typeful aspects of generic classes, avoiding the tricky issue of their implementations, even though previous articles have demonstrated how to model both types and implementations separately [4, 5] and in combination [6]. This is because many of the operations of a Stack or a List return modified objects “like themselves”; and it turns out that this is one of the more difficult things to model in the Theory of Classification. The attentive reader will have noticed that we have so far avoided the whole issue of object modification.
    [Show full text]
  • Automatically Verified Implementation of Data Structures Based on AVL Trees Martin Clochard
    Automatically verified implementation of data structures based on AVL trees Martin Clochard To cite this version: Martin Clochard. Automatically verified implementation of data structures based on AVL trees. 6th Working Conference on Verified Software: Theories, Tools and Experiments (VSTTE), Jul 2014, Vienna, Austria. hal-01067217 HAL Id: hal-01067217 https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01067217 Submitted on 23 Sep 2014 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Automatically verified implementation of data structures based on AVL trees Martin Clochard1,2 1 Ecole Normale Sup´erieure, Paris, F-75005 2 Univ. Paris-Sud & INRIA Saclay & LRI-CNRS, Orsay, F-91405 Abstract. We propose verified implementations of several data struc- tures, including random-access lists and ordered maps. They are derived from a common parametric implementation of self-balancing binary trees in the style of Adelson-Velskii and Landis trees. The development of the specifications, implementations and proofs is carried out using the Why3 environment. The originality of this approach is the genericity of the specifications and code combined with a high level of proof automation. 1 Introduction Formal specification and verification of the functional behavior of complex data structures like collections of elements is known to be challenging [1,2].
    [Show full text]
  • An English-Persian Dictionary of Algorithms and Data Structures
    An EnglishPersian Dictionary of Algorithms and Data Structures a a zarrabibasuacir ghodsisharifedu algorithm B A all pairs shortest path absolute p erformance guarantee b alphab et abstract data typ e alternating path accepting state alternating Turing machine d Ackermans function alternation d Ackermanns function amortized cost acyclic digraph amortized worst case acyclic directed graph ancestor d acyclic graph and adaptive heap sort ANSI b adaptivekdtree antichain adaptive sort antisymmetric addresscalculation sort approximation algorithm adjacencylist representation arc adjacencymatrix representation array array index adjacency list array merging adjacency matrix articulation p oint d adjacent articulation vertex d b admissible vertex assignmentproblem adversary asso ciation list algorithm asso ciative binary function asso ciative array binary GCD algorithm asymptotic b ound binary insertion sort asymptotic lower b ound binary priority queue asymptotic space complexity binary relation binary search asymptotic time complexity binary trie asymptotic upp er b ound c bingo sort asymptotically equal to bipartite graph asymptotically tightbound bipartite matching
    [Show full text]