skip to main content
article

Many cyclic block diagrams do not need parallel semantics

Published:01 August 2006Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

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.

References

  1. G. Berry. The Esterel v5 language primer. ftp://ftp-sop.inria.fr/meije/esterel/papers/primer.pdf, June 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. A. Bouali, R. de Simone, et al. Verifying synchronous reactive systems programmed in Esterel. In Lecture Notes in Comp. Sci. 1135, pages 463--466, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. S. A. Edwards and E. A. Lee. The semantics and execution of a synchronous block-diagram language. Sci. Comp. Program., 48(1):21--42, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. P. Hudak. Modular domain specific languages and tools. In 5th Intl. Conf. on Software Reuse, pages 134--142. IEEE Comp. Soc. Press, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. National Instruments. Labview. http://www.-ni.com/labview.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. S. Peyton Jones. Haskell 98 Language and Libraries. Cambridge U. Press, April 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. P. J. Landin. The next 700 programming languages. Comm. ACM, 9(3):157--166, 1966. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. E. A. Lee et al. Ptolemy. http://ptolemy.eecs.-berkeley.edu.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. The Mathworks. Simulink. http://www.mathworks.com/products/simulink.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. K. L. McMillan. Symbolic Model Checking. Kluwer, 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. C.-H. L. Ong. Correspondence between operational and denotational semantics. In Handbook of Logic in Comp. Sci., volume 4, pages 269--356. Oxford U. Press, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. H. J. Reekie. Realtime Signal Processing: Dataflow, Visual and Functional Programming. PhD thesis, U. of Tech. at Sydney, Australia, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Many cyclic block diagrams do not need parallel semantics

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in

            Full Access

            • Published in

              cover image ACM SIGPLAN Notices
              ACM SIGPLAN Notices  Volume 41, Issue 8
              August 2006
              37 pages
              ISSN:0362-1340
              EISSN:1558-1160
              DOI:10.1145/1163566
              Issue’s Table of Contents

              Copyright © 2006 Author

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 1 August 2006

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • article

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader
            About Cookies On This Site

            We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

            Learn more

            Got it!