References

  1. Mads Sig Ager, Dariusz Biernacki, Olivier Danvy & Jan Midtgaard (2003): A functional correspondence between evaluators and abstract machines. In: Proceedings of the 5th International ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming, 27-29 August 2003, Uppsala, Sweden. ACM, pp. 8–19, doi:10.1145/888251.888254.
  2. Malgorzata Biernacka & Olivier Danvy (2007): A concrete framework for environment machines. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 9(1), pp. 1–30, doi:10.1145/1297658.1297664.
  3. Malgorzata Biernacka & Olivier Danvy (2007): A syntactic correspondence between context-sensitive calculi and abstract machines. Theoretical Computer Science 375(1-3), pp. 76–108, doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2006.12.028.
  4. Olivier Danvy (2004): On Evaluation Contexts, Continuations, and the Rest of the Computation. In: Hayo Thielecke: ACM-SIGPLAN Continuations Workshop (CW'04) Technical report CSR-04-1, School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom, pp. 13–23. Available at http://cs.au.dk/~danvy/DSc/29_danvy_cw-2004.pdf.
  5. Olivier Danvy (2009): Towards Compatible and Interderivable Semantic Specifications for the Scheme Programming Language, Part I: Denotational Semantics, Natural Semantics, and Abstract Machines. In: Jens Palsberg: Semantics and Algebraic Specification, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5700. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 162–185, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04164-8_9.
  6. Olivier Danvy & Kevin Millikin (2008): On the equivalence between small-step and big-step abstract machines: a simple application of lightweight fusion. Information Processing Letters 106(3), pp. 100–109, doi:10.1016/j.ipl.2007.10.010.
  7. Olivier Danvy & Lasse R. Nielsen (2004): Refocusing in Reduction Semantics. Technical Report RS-04-26. Basic Research in Computer Science (BRICS), University of Aarhus, Denmark. Available at http://www.brics.dk/RS/04/26/BRICS-RS-04-26.pdf.
  8. Alberto de la Encina & Ricardo Peña-Marí (2009): From natural semantics to C: A formal derivation of two STG machines. Journal of Functional Programming 19(1), pp. 47–94, doi:10.1017/S0956796808006746.
  9. Simon L. Peyton Jones (1992): Implementing Lazy Functional Languages on Stock Hardware: The Spineless Tagless G-Machine. Journal of Functional Programming 2(2), pp. 127–202, doi:10.1017/S0956796800000319.
  10. Jean-Louis Krivine (2007): A call-by-name lambda-calculus machine. Higher-Order and Symbolic Computation 20(3), pp. 199–207, doi:10.1007/s10990-007-9018-9.
  11. Xavier Leroy (1990): The ZINC experiment: an economical implementation of the ML language. Technical report 117. INRIA. Available at http://gallium.inria.fr/~xleroy/publi/ZINC.pdf.
  12. Simon Marlow & Simon L. Peyton Jones (2006): Making a fast curry: push/enter vs. eval/apply for higher-order languages. Journal of Functional Programming 16(4-5), pp. 415–449, doi:10.1017/S0956796806005995.
  13. Maciej Piróg & Dariusz Biernacki (2010): A systematic derivation of the STG machine verified in Coq. In: Jeremy Gibbons: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Haskell, Haskell 2010, Baltimore, MD, USA, 30 September 2010. ACM, pp. 25–36, doi:10.1145/1863523.1863528.
  14. Filip Sieczkowski, Malgorzata Biernacka & Dariusz Biernacki (2010): Automating Derivations of Abstract Machines from Reduction Semantics: A Generic Formalization of Refocusing in Coq. In: Jurriaan Hage & Marco T. Morazán: Implementation and Application of Functional Languages—22nd International Symposium, IFL 2010, Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands, September 1-3, 2010, Revised Selected Papers, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 6647. Springer, pp. 72–88, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-24276-2_5.
Comments and questions to: eptcs@eptcs.org
For website issues: webmaster@eptcs.org