Observational purity and encapsulation

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Volumn 3442, Issue , 2005, Pages 190-204

  Naumann, David A ^a  

^a Stevens Institute of Technology   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER HARDWARE DESCRIPTION LANGUAGES; ENCAPSULATION; EQUIVALENCE CLASSES; SEMANTICS; SPECIFICATIONS;

COHERENT SEMANTICS; OBJECT-ORIENTED PROGRAMS; RUNTIME ASSERTION; SPECIFICATION FORMULA;

OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING;

EID: 24644490287     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-31984-9_15     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (19)

1. J. Aldrich and C. Chambers. Ownership domains: Separating aliasing policy from mechanism. In European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, pages 1-25, 2004.
2. A. Banerjee and D. A. Naumann. Ownership confinement ensures representation independence for object-oriented programs. Journal of the ACM, 2002. Accepted, revision pending. Extended version of [3].
3. A. Banerjee and D. A. Naumann. Representation independence, confinement and access control. In ACM Symp. on Princ. of Program. Lang. (POPL), pages 166-177, 2002.
4. A. Banerjee and D. A. Naumann. State based ownership, reentrance, and encapsulation. Submitted, Dec. 2004.
5. M. Barnett, R. DeLine, M. Fähndrich, K. R. M. Leino, and W. Schulte. Verification of object-oriented programs with invariants. Journal of Object Technology, 3(6):27-56, 2004.
6. M. Barnett, D. A. Naumann, W. Schulte, and Q. Sun. 99.44% pure: Useful abstractions in specifications. In ECOOP workshop on Formal Techniques for Java-like Programs (FTfJP), 2004. Technical Report NIII-R0426, University of Nijmegen.
7. C. Calcagno, P. O'Hearn, and R. Bornat. Program logic and equivalence in the presence of garbage collection. Theoretical Comput. Sci., 298(3):557-581, 2003.
8. A. L. C. Cavalcanti and D. A. Naumann. Forward simulation for data refinement of classes. In Formal Methods Europe, volume 2391 of LNCS, pages 471-490, 2002.
9. D. Clarke and S. Drossopoulou. Ownership, encapsulation and the disjointness of type and effect. In OOPSLA, pages 292-310, Nov. 2002.
10. W.-P. de Roever and K. Engelhardt. Data Refinement: Model-Oriented Proof Methods and their Comparison. Cambridge University Press, 1998.
11. C. Flanagan, K. R. M. Leino, M. Lillibridge, G. Nelson, J. B. Saxe, and R. Stata. Extended static checking for Java. In ACM Conf. on Program. Lang. Design and Implementation (PLDI), pages 234-245, 2002.
12. G. T. Leavens, Y. Cheon, C. Clifton, C. Ruby, and D. R. Cok. How the design of JML accommodates both runtime assertion checking and formal verification. In Formal Methods for Components and Objects (FMCO 2002), volume 2852 of LNCS, pages 262-284, 2003.
13. B. Meyer. Object-oriented Software Construction. Prentice Hall, New York, second edition, 1997.
14. J. C. Mitchell. Foundations for Programming Languages. MIT Press, 1996.
15. P.Müller. Modular Specification and Verification of Object-Oriented Programs. Number 2262 in LNCS. Springer, 2002.
16. D. A. Naumann and M. Barnett. Towards imperative modules: Reasoning about invariants and sharing of mutable state (extended abstract). In IEEE Symp. on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), pages 313-323, 2004.
17. C. Pierik, D. Clarke, and F. S. de Boer. Creational invariants. In Proceedings of ECOOP workshop on Formal Techniques for Java-like Programs (FTfJP), 2004. Technical Report NIII-R0426, University of Nijmegen.
18. A. Sabelfeld and A. C. Myers. Language-based information-flow security. IEEE J. Selected Areas in Communications, 21(1):5-19, Jan. 2003.
19. A. Salcianu and M. Rinard. A combined pointer and purity analysis for Java programs. Technical Report MIT-CSAIL-TR-949, Department of Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, May 2004.