DOCSLIB.ORG

Technical Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Technical Report Technical Report Proceedings of the 2020 Scheme and Functional Programming Workshop Edited by Baptiste Saleil and Michael D. Adams arXiv:2101.06759v1 [cs.PL] 17 Jan 2021 January 2021 Computer Science and Engineering technical reports published by University of Michigan are available at: https:// cse.engin.umich.edu/ research/ technical-reports-publications/ Preface This report aggregates the papers presented at the twenty-first annual Scheme and Func- tional Programming Workshop, hosted on August 28th, 2020, online and co-located with the twenty-fifth International Conference on Functional Programming. The Scheme and Func- tional Programming Workshop is held every year to provide an opportunity for researchers and practitioners using Scheme and related functional programming languages like Racket, Clojure, and Lisp, to share research findings and discuss the future of the Scheme program- ming language. Seven papers and three lightning talks were submitted to the workshop, and each submission was reviewed by three members of the program committee. After deliber- ation, four papers and three lightning talks were accepted to the workshop. In addition to the four papers and three lightning talks presented, • Martin Henz and Tobias Wrigstad gave an invited keynote speech entitled SICP JS: Ketchup on Caviar? • Bohdan Khomtchouk and Jonah Fleishhacker gave an invited keynote speech entitled 21st Century Lisp in Academic Research and Pedagogy. Thank you to all the presenters, panelists, participants, and members of the program com- mittee. Program Committee Michael D. Adams, University of Michigan (Program Co-Chair) Baptiste Saleil, IBM Canada (Program Co-Chair) Maxime Chevalier-Boisvert, Universit´ede Montr´eal Ryan Culpepper, Czech Technical University Kimball Germane, University of Utah Yukiyoshi Kameyama, University of Tsukuba Andy Keep, Cisco Systems, Inc Julien Pag`es,Universit´ede Montr´eal Alexey Radul, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Steering Committee Will Byrd, University of Alabama at Birmingham Will Clinger, Northeastern University Marc Feeley, Universit´ede Montr´eal Dan Friedman, Indiana University Olin Shivers, Northeastern University Scheme and Functional Programming Workshop 2020 ii Scheme and Functional Programming Workshop 2020 iii Contents Keynote: SICP JS: Ketchup on Caviar? . .1 Keynote: 21st Century Lisp in Academic Research and Pedagogy . .2 Paper: Clotho: A Racket Library for Parametric Randomness . .3 Paper: Solving SICP: An Experience Report on Solving the World's Most Famous Programming Problem Set . 14 Paper: Running Scheme On Bare Metal (Experience Report) . 51 Paper: Scheme for Scientific Computing . 66 Talk: On Teaching Type Systems as Macros . 77 Talk: Designing a Programming Environment Based on the Program Design Recipe 78 Talk: Programming with Petri Nets to Reason about Concurrency . 79 Scheme and Functional Programming Workshop 2020 iv Keynote - SICP JS: Ketchup on Caviar? SICP JS: Ketchup on Caviar? Martin Henz Tobias Wrigstad National University of Singapore Uppsala University [email protected] [email protected] With its minimalism, the language Scheme is well suited, if controller instructions in chapter 5 of SICP JS enjoy a syntax not designed, for teaching the structure and interpretation similar to SICP, through the use of constructors, which fit of computer programs (SICP) to freshmen computer science naturally into section 5.2.3. On the negative side, the lack of students, and Harold Abelson and Gerald Jay Sussman made macros and our restriction to a JavaScript-compatible parser use of the language in their eponymous book, whose second required significant changes to and occasionally replacement edition was published in 1996. The presenters applied the of exercises in chapter 4. same minimalism to JavaScript, by identifying four sublan- The audience is welcome to inspect SICP JS by visiting guages just expressive enough for the first four chapters of https://source-academy.github.io/sicp. A comparison edition SICP, and named the languages Source §1, 2, 3 and 4. (There lets the reader inspect the changes and compare them line- turned out to be no need for a sublanguage for chapter 5 by-line with the original. The presentation will leave ample of SICP.) Due to changes introduced to JavaScript with EC- time for discussion. MAScript 2015, the Source languages are similar enough to The presentation will also cover the Source Academy, an Scheme for a relatively close adaptation of SICP to JavaScript. online learning environment for programming, developed The resulting book by Abelson and Sussman as original au- by and for students at the National University of Singapore, thors, and by the presenters as adapters, is available online, which implements the four Source languages along with including a side-by-side comparison. several variants and extensions introduced in SICP. We encountered the following issues during the adapta- tion due to the differences between the Source languages and Scheme, and briefly sketch here how they are resolved in SICP JS. The distinction between statements and expressions, and the use of return is probably the most significant change from SICP to SICP JS. A notable consequence is the need to wrap return values in data structures in 4.1.1 and 4.1.3 in order to distinguish x => { return x; } from x => { x; } the latter of which returns undefined in JavaScript. We faith- fully implement JavaScript’s return statements in chapters 4 and 5, such that control can return to the caller from any- where in the function body. This leads to several significant changes in these chapters, compared to the original. As a benefit, SICP JS helps readers understand statement-oriented languages such as Java and Python better. Both Scheme and JavaScript (in strict mode, introduced in ECMAScript 5) employ lexical scoping. The Source lan- guages only use JavaScript’s const and let (introduced in ECMAScript 2015) and avoid JavaScript’s var. The treatment of the scope of variables in chapter 4 and 5 becomes more uniform in SICP JS compared to SICP, as a result of consis- tently applying a treatment of const and let akin to Scheme’s derived expression letrec. The absence of Scheme’s homoiconicity might at the sur- face be considered a major obstacle to adapting SICP to lan- guages with a conventional syntax. However, SICP already hides the concrete syntax of programs behind an abstraction layer, which greatly simplifies the JavaScript adaptation. The introduction of an explicit parser suffices for adapting chap- ter 4 (including section 4.4 on logic programming), and the Scheme and Functional Programming Workshop 2020 1 Keynote - 21st Century Lisp in Academic Research and Pedagogy 21st Century Lisp in Academic Research and Pedagogy Bohdan Khomtchouk Jonah Fleishhacker University of Chicago University of Chicago [email protected] [email protected] Lisp-family languages (LFLs) continue to influence and in- pedagogy, particularly in introductory computer science and form modern programming language design and applica- functional programming courses. We present an educational tions. In bioinformatics and computational biology, LFLs perspective on beginning one’s journey in computer science have successfully been applied to high-performance com- with LFLs, and the advantages unique to this pedagogical puting, database curation, systems biology, drug discovery, approach. Distinct advantages of using LFLs for students can computational chemistry and nanotechnology, among much be found in fundamental theoretical concepts of computer more. Furthermore, dialects such as Racket, with its language- science and functional programming, along with practical oriented programming and streamlined development envi- software development in industry settings. ronment, or Clojure, with its Java ecosystem and comprehen- sive open-source libraries, present exciting possibilities in Scheme and Functional Programming Workshop 2020 2 Paper - Clotho: A Racket Library for Parametric Randomness Clotho: A Racket Library for Parametric Randomness Pierce Darragh William Gallard Hatch Eric Eide [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] University of Utah University of Utah University of Utah Salt Lake City, UT, USA Salt Lake City, UT, USA Salt Lake City, UT, USA Abstract Many mainstream programming languages only provide Programs such as simulators and fuzz testers often use ran- very simple randomness primitives and leave the more com- domness to walk through a large state space in search of plex uses of these functions up to developers to implement interesting paths or outcomes. These explorations can be on a per-case basis. This can be tedious and is prone to error. made more efficient by employing heuristics that “zero-in” While working on a random program generator (§2.1), we on paths through the state space that are more likely to lead found ourselves in need of a system for manipulating the to interesting solutions. Given one path that exhibits a de- outcomes of randomness functions in a predictable manner. sired property, it may be beneficial to generate and explore We wanted to “record” a sequence of randomly generated similar paths to determine if they produce similarly interest- values, modify that sequence in some way, and then feed ing results. When the random decisions made during this the modified recording back to our system to get a new—but path exploration can be manipulated in such a way that they similar—sequence of randomly generated values. Crucially, correspond
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ironpython in Action
    IronPytho IN ACTION Michael J. Foord Christian Muirhead FOREWORD BY JIM HUGUNIN MANNING IronPython in Action Download at Boykma.Com Licensed to Deborah Christiansen <[email protected]> Download at Boykma.Com Licensed to Deborah Christiansen <[email protected]> IronPython in Action MICHAEL J. FOORD CHRISTIAN MUIRHEAD MANNING Greenwich (74° w. long.) Download at Boykma.Com Licensed to Deborah Christiansen <[email protected]> For online information and ordering of this and other Manning books, please visit www.manning.com. The publisher offers discounts on this book when ordered in quantity. For more information, please contact Special Sales Department Manning Publications Co. Sound View Court 3B fax: (609) 877-8256 Greenwich, CT 06830 email: [email protected] ©2009 by Manning Publications Co. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without prior written permission of the publisher. Many of the designations used by manufacturers and sellers to distinguish their products are claimed as trademarks. Where those designations appear in the book, and Manning Publications was aware of a trademark claim, the designations have been printed in initial caps or all caps. Recognizing the importance of preserving what has been written, it is Manning’s policy to have the books we publish printed on acid-free paper, and we exert our best efforts to that end. Recognizing also our responsibility to conserve the resources of our planet, Manning books are printed on paper that is at least 15% recycled and processed without the use of elemental chlorine.
    [Show full text]
  • Knuthweb.Pdf
    Literate Programming Donald E. Knuth Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA The author and his associates have been experimenting for the past several years with a program- ming language and documentation system called WEB. This paper presents WEB by example, and discusses why the new system appears to be an improvement over previous ones. I would ordinarily have assigned to student research A. INTRODUCTION assistants; and why? Because it seems to me that at last I’m able to write programs as they should be written. The past ten years have witnessed substantial improve- My programs are not only explained better than ever ments in programming methodology. This advance, before; they also are better programs, because the new carried out under the banner of “structured program- methodology encourages me to do a better job. For ming,” has led to programs that are more reliable and these reasons I am compelled to write this paper, in easier to comprehend; yet the results are not entirely hopes that my experiences will prove to be relevant to satisfactory. My purpose in the present paper is to others. propose another motto that may be appropriate for the I must confess that there may also be a bit of mal- next decade, as we attempt to make further progress ice in my choice of a title. During the 1970s I was in the state of the art. I believe that the time is ripe coerced like everybody else into adopting the ideas of for significantly better documentation of programs, and structured programming, because I couldn’t bear to be that we can best achieve this by considering programs found guilty of writing unstructured programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Programming Pearls: a Literate Program
    by jot1 Be~~tley programming with Special Guest Oysters Don Knuth and Doug McIlroy pearls A LITERATE PROGRAM Last month‘s column introduced Don Knuth’s style of frequency; or there might not even be as many as k “Literate Programming” and his WEB system for building words. Let’s be more precise: The most common programs that are works of literature. This column pre- words are to be printed in order of decreasing fre- sents a literate program by Knuth (its origins are sketched quency, with words of equal frequency listed in al- in last month‘s column) and, as befits literature, a review. phabetic order. Printing should stop after k words So without further ado, here is Knuth’s program, have been output, if more than k words are present. retypeset in Communications style. -Jon Bentley 2. The input file is assumed to contain the given Common Words Section text. If it begins with a positive decimal number Introduction.. , . , , . , . , . , , . 1 (preceded by optional blanks), that number will be Strategic considerations . , a the value of k; otherwise we shall assume that Basic input routines . , , . 9 k = 100. Answers will be sent to the output file. Dictionary lookup . , . , . , .17 define default-k = 100 (use this value if k isn’t The frequency counts . .32 otherwise specified) Sortingatrie . ...36 Theendgame................................41 3. Besides solving the given problem, this program is Index . ...42 supposed to be an example of the WEB system, for people who know some Pascal but who have never 1. Introduction. The purpose of this program is to seen WEB before.
    [Show full text]
  • The Machine That Builds Itself: How the Strengths of Lisp Family
    Khomtchouk et al. OPINION NOTE The Machine that Builds Itself: How the Strengths of Lisp Family Languages Facilitate Building Complex and Flexible Bioinformatic Models Bohdan B. Khomtchouk1*, Edmund Weitz2 and Claes Wahlestedt1 *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract 1Center for Therapeutic Innovation and Department of We address the need for expanding the presence of the Lisp family of Psychiatry and Behavioral programming languages in bioinformatics and computational biology research. Sciences, University of Miami Languages of this family, like Common Lisp, Scheme, or Clojure, facilitate the Miller School of Medicine, 1120 NW 14th ST, Miami, FL, USA creation of powerful and flexible software models that are required for complex 33136 and rapidly evolving domains like biology. We will point out several important key Full list of author information is features that distinguish languages of the Lisp family from other programming available at the end of the article languages and we will explain how these features can aid researchers in becoming more productive and creating better code. We will also show how these features make these languages ideal tools for artificial intelligence and machine learning applications. We will specifically stress the advantages of domain-specific languages (DSL): languages which are specialized to a particular area and thus not only facilitate easier research problem formulation, but also aid in the establishment of standards and best programming practices as applied to the specific research field at hand. DSLs are particularly easy to build in Common Lisp, the most comprehensive Lisp dialect, which is commonly referred to as the “programmable programming language.” We are convinced that Lisp grants programmers unprecedented power to build increasingly sophisticated artificial intelligence systems that may ultimately transform machine learning and AI research in bioinformatics and computational biology.
    [Show full text]
  • Bringing GNU Emacs to Native Code
    Bringing GNU Emacs to Native Code Andrea Corallo Luca Nassi Nicola Manca [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] CNR-SPIN Genoa, Italy ABSTRACT such a long-standing project. Although this makes it didactic, some Emacs Lisp (Elisp) is the Lisp dialect used by the Emacs text editor limitations prevent the current implementation of Emacs Lisp to family. GNU Emacs can currently execute Elisp code either inter- be appealing for broader use. In this context, performance issues preted or byte-interpreted after it has been compiled to byte-code. represent the main bottleneck, which can be broken down in three In this work we discuss the implementation of an optimizing com- main sub-problems: piler approach for Elisp targeting native code. The native compiler • lack of true multi-threading support, employs the byte-compiler’s internal representation as input and • garbage collection speed, exploits libgccjit to achieve code generation using the GNU Com- • code execution speed. piler Collection (GCC) infrastructure. Generated executables are From now on we will focus on the last of these issues, which con- stored as binary files and can be loaded and unloaded dynamically. stitutes the topic of this work. Most of the functionality of the compiler is written in Elisp itself, The current implementation traditionally approaches the prob- including several optimization passes, paired with a C back-end lem of code execution speed in two ways: to interface with the GNU Emacs core and libgccjit. Though still a work in progress, our implementation is able to bootstrap a func- • Implementing a large number of performance-sensitive prim- tional Emacs and compile all lexically scoped Elisp files, including itive functions (also known as subr) in C.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Lispworks User Guide
    LispWorks® for the Windows® Operating System Common LispWorks User Guide Version 5.1 Copyright and Trademarks Common LispWorks User Guide (Windows version) Version 5.1 February 2008 Copyright © 2008 by LispWorks Ltd. All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of LispWorks Ltd. The information in this publication is provided for information only, is subject to change without notice, and should not be construed as a commitment by LispWorks Ltd. LispWorks Ltd assumes no responsibility or liability for any errors or inaccuracies that may appear in this publication. The software described in this book is furnished under license and may only be used or copied in accordance with the terms of that license. LispWorks and KnowledgeWorks are registered trademarks of LispWorks Ltd. Adobe and PostScript are registered trademarks of Adobe Systems Incorporated. Other brand or product names are the registered trade- marks or trademarks of their respective holders. The code for walker.lisp and compute-combination-points is excerpted with permission from PCL, Copyright © 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 Xerox Corporation. The XP Pretty Printer bears the following copyright notice, which applies to the parts of LispWorks derived therefrom: Copyright © 1989 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, pro- vided that this copyright and permission notice appear in all copies and supporting documentation, and that the name of M.I.T.
    [Show full text]
  • An Optimized R5RS Macro Expander
    An Optimized R5RS Macro Expander Sean Reque A thesis submitted to the faculty of Brigham Young University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Jay McCarthy, Chair Eric Mercer Quinn Snell Department of Computer Science Brigham Young University February 2013 Copyright c 2013 Sean Reque All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT An Optimized R5RS Macro Expander Sean Reque Department of Computer Science, BYU Master of Science Macro systems allow programmers abstractions over the syntax of a programming language. This gives the programmer some of the same power posessed by a programming language designer, namely, the ability to extend the programming language to fit the needs of the programmer. The value of such systems has been demonstrated by their continued adoption in more languages and platforms. However, several barriers to widespread adoption of macro systems still exist. The language Racket [6] defines a small core of primitive language constructs, including a powerful macro system, upon which all other features are built. Because of this design, many features of other programming languages can be implemented through libraries, keeping the core language simple without sacrificing power or flexibility. However, slow macro expansion remains a lingering problem in the language's primary implementation, and in fact macro expansion currently dominates compile times for Racket modules and programs. Besides the typical problems associated with slow compile times, such as slower testing feedback, increased mental disruption during the programming process, and unscalable build times for large projects, slow macro expansion carries its own unique problems, such as poorer performance for IDEs and other software analysis tools.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a Portable and Mobile Scheme Interpreter
    Towards a Portable and Mobile Scheme Interpreter Adrien Pi´erard Marc Feeley Universit´eParis 6 Universit´ede Montr´eal [email protected] [email protected] Abstract guage. Because Mobit implements R4RS Scheme [6], we must also The transfer of program data between the nodes of a distributed address the serialization of continuations. Our main contribution is system is a fundamental operation. It usually requires some form the demonstration of how this can be done while preserving the in- of data serialization. For a functional language such as Scheme it is terpreter’s maintainability and with local changes to the original in- clearly desirable to also allow the unrestricted transfer of functions terpreter’s structure, mainly through the use of unhygienic macros. between nodes. With the goal of developing a portable implemen- We start by giving an overview of the pertinent features of the tation of the Termite system we have designed the Mobit Scheme Termite dialect of Scheme. In Section 3 we explain the structure interpreter which supports unrestricted serialization of Scheme ob- of the interpreter on which Mobit is based. Object serialization is jects, including procedures and continuations. Mobit is derived discussed in Section 4. Section 5 compares Mobit’s performance from an existing Scheme in Scheme fast interpreter. We demon- with other interpreters. We conclude with related and future work. strate how macros were valuable in transforming the interpreter while preserving its structure and maintainability. Our performance 2. Termite evaluation shows that the run time speed of Mobit is comparable to Termite is a Scheme adaptation of the Erlang concurrency model.
    [Show full text]
  • An Evaluation of Go and Clojure
    An evaluation of Go and Clojure A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Bachelors of Science in Computer Science Fall 2010 Robert Stimpfling Department of Computer Science University of Colorado, Boulder Advisor: Kenneth M. Anderson, PhD Department of Computer Science University of Colorado, Boulder 1. Introduction Concurrent programming languages are not new, but they have been getting a lot of attention more recently due to their potential with multiple processors. Processors have gone from growing exponentially in terms of speed, to growing in terms of quantity. This means processes that are completely serial in execution will soon be seeing a plateau in performance gains since they can only rely on one processor. A popular approach to using these extra processors is to make programs multi-threaded. The threads can execute in parallel and use shared memory to speed up execution times. These multithreaded processes can significantly speed up performance, as long as the number of dependencies remains low. Amdahl‘s law states that these performance gains can only be relative to the amount of processing that can be parallelized [1]. However, the performance gains are significant enough to be looked into. These gains not only come from the processing being divvied up into sections that run in parallel, but from the inherent gains from sharing memory and data structures. Passing new threads a copy of a data structure can be demanding on the processor because it requires the processor to delve into memory and make an exact copy in a new location in memory. Indeed some studies have shown that the problem with optimizing concurrent threads is not in utilizing the processors optimally, but in the need for technical improvements in memory performance [2].
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Dot Net (Pdf)
    What is .NET 1 outline • .NET framework • CLR • CLI, CIL, MSIL • ADO.NET, ASP.NET, MVC, webforms, razor • Mono • .NET Core • .NET Standard 2 .NET framework • Software framework • First released early 2000’s • “consists of the common language runtime (CLR) and the .NET Framework class library (FCL)” [1] • Provides a “code execution environment” • Various runtime hosts for the CLR [2] • ASP.NET (via ISAPI filter) • Executable • Can write your own 3 CLR • The virtual machine that manages execution of .NET programs [3] • Memory • Threads • Code trust • Type checking • pinvoke • JIT compiling to execute on current hardware 4 .NET Framework and CLR • Framework and CLR are different [4] • Can technically run different framework versions within the same CLR version • E.g. Windows XP only supports framework up to 4.0, running 4.5 apps is theoretically possible (with some hex editing of the binary) as long as calls are restricted to methods that were the same in 4.0 (e.g., no extensions) [5] • Recent framework updates have been focused on • Optimization (including SIMD) • Accessories (stylus, touch screen, etc) • Security 5 CLR, CLI, CIL • Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) • Open standard that describes executable code [6] • Common Intermediate Language (CIL) [7] • Aka “IL” • Formerly MSIL • Object oriented assembly language • Platform independent • A compiler takes source code and • Converts it to CIL using the CLI specification • Adds any required metadata (type information, etc) • This is an “assembly” 6 CLR, CLI, CIL • Visual Studio tooling
    [Show full text]
  • Unifying Modeling and Programming with ALF
    SOFTENG 2016 : The Second International Conference on Advances and Trends in Software Engineering Unifying Modeling and Programming with ALF Thomas Buchmann and Alexander Rimer University of Bayreuth Chair of Applied Computer Science I Bayreuth, Germany email: fthomas.buchmann, [email protected] Abstract—Model-driven software engineering has become more The Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) [5] has been and more popular during the last decade. While modeling the established as an extensible platform for the development of static structure of a software system is almost state-of-the art MDSE applications. It is based on the Ecore meta-model, nowadays, programming is still required to supply behavior, i.e., which is compatible with the Object Management Group method bodies. Unified Modeling Language (UML) class dia- (OMG) Meta Object Facility (MOF) specification [6]. Ideally, grams constitute the standard in structural modeling. Behavioral software engineers operate only on the level of models such modeling, on the other hand, may be achieved graphically with a set of UML diagrams or with textual languages. Unfortunately, that there is no need to inspect or edit the actual source code, not all UML diagrams come with a precisely defined execution which is generated from the models automatically. However, semantics and thus, code generation is hindered. In this paper, an practical experiences have shown that language-specific adap- implementation of the Action Language for Foundational UML tations to the generated source code are frequently necessary. (Alf) standard is presented, which allows for textual modeling In EMF, for instance, only structure is modeled by means of of software systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Plantuml Language Reference Guide (Version 1.2021.2)
    Drawing UML with PlantUML PlantUML Language Reference Guide (Version 1.2021.2) PlantUML is a component that allows to quickly write : • Sequence diagram • Usecase diagram • Class diagram • Object diagram • Activity diagram • Component diagram • Deployment diagram • State diagram • Timing diagram The following non-UML diagrams are also supported: • JSON Data • YAML Data • Network diagram (nwdiag) • Wireframe graphical interface • Archimate diagram • Specification and Description Language (SDL) • Ditaa diagram • Gantt diagram • MindMap diagram • Work Breakdown Structure diagram • Mathematic with AsciiMath or JLaTeXMath notation • Entity Relationship diagram Diagrams are defined using a simple and intuitive language. 1 SEQUENCE DIAGRAM 1 Sequence Diagram 1.1 Basic examples The sequence -> is used to draw a message between two participants. Participants do not have to be explicitly declared. To have a dotted arrow, you use --> It is also possible to use <- and <--. That does not change the drawing, but may improve readability. Note that this is only true for sequence diagrams, rules are different for the other diagrams. @startuml Alice -> Bob: Authentication Request Bob --> Alice: Authentication Response Alice -> Bob: Another authentication Request Alice <-- Bob: Another authentication Response @enduml 1.2 Declaring participant If the keyword participant is used to declare a participant, more control on that participant is possible. The order of declaration will be the (default) order of display. Using these other keywords to declare participants
    [Show full text]