Many cyclic block diagrams do not need parallel semantics

Authors:
Ben Denckla
Affiliations:
Denckla Consulting, Los Angeles, CA
Venue:
ACM SIGPLAN Notices
Year:
2006

Citing 6
Cited 1

Correspondence between operational and denotational semantics: the full abstraction problem for PCF

Handbook of logic in computer science (vol. 4)
The next 700 programming languages

Communications of the ACM
Symbolic Model Checking

Symbolic Model Checking
Verifying Synchronous Reactive Systems Programmed in ESTEREL

FTRTFT '96 Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Formal Techniques in Real-Time and Fault-Tolerant Systems
Modular Domain Specific Languages and Tools

ICSR '98 Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Software Reuse
The semantics and execution of a synchronous block-diagram language

Science of Computer Programming

Simulating real-time software components based on logical execution time

SCSC '09 Proceedings of the 2009 Summer Computer Simulation Conference

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

Some cyclic block diagrams need parallel semantics: they are syntactically invalid or semantically nonterminating in any block diagram language with sequential semantics. Yet, many cyclic block diagrams do not need parallel semantics: they behave the same in a block diagram language with non-strict sequential semantics. We show that a block diagram used to motivate the parallel semantics of the Ptolemy SR domain behaves the same in BdHas, a block diagram language with non-strict sequential semantics. BdHas is implemented as syntactic sugar on top of Haskell.