Higher-order abstract syntax: setting the record straight

Authors:
Karl Crary;Robert Harper
Affiliations:
Carnegie Mellon University;Carnegie Mellon University
Venue:
ACM SIGACT News
Year:
2006

Citing 1
Cited 2

A framework for defining logics

Journal of the ACM (JACM)

Nominal system T

Proceedings of the 37th annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages
Formalizing Adequacy: A Case Study for Higher-order Abstract Syntax

Journal of Automated Reasoning

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

A recent SIGACT News Logic column, guest-written by James CheneyDOI =10.1145/1107523.1107537, discussed nominal logic [1], anapproach to abstract syntax with binding structure. In addition toproviding a worthy tutorial on nominal logic, that column leveledfive criticisms at higher-order abstract syntax, an alternativeapproach for dealing with binding structure in abstract syntax. Weargue below that three of those criticisms are factuallyinaccurate, and the other two are misguided.