[CoFI] Concrete syntax for basic specifications

[pdmosses@brics.dk]

A document with a compromise proposal for the concrete syntax of basic
specifications in CASL is (at last!) available at:

  http://www.brics.dk/Projects/CoFI/Documents/CASL/SyntaxIssues/
  ftp://ftp.brics.dk/Projects/CoFI/Documents/CASL/SyntaxIssues/

A copy of the abstract is given below.

Peter

----   --------------------------------------------
\  /  | Peter D Mosses         <pdmosses@brics.dk> |
CoFI  | Common Framework Initiative  - Coordinator |
/  \  | WWW URL: http://www.brics.dk/Projects/CoFI |
----   --------------------------------------------


                          Concrete Syntax for CASL
                            Basic Specifications

                               Peter D. Mosses

                              4 September 1997

Abstract

     This proposal for the concrete syntax of basic specifications in
     CASL is intended as a compromise between the earlier proposals
     from Bremen [KB97] and Paris [VBC97].

     Main novelties:

        * widespread use of `?' to suggest possible undefinedness, with
          a compromise notation for partial-function types
        * `concise' and `verbose' versions of both input syntax and
          display format

     Examples of specifications illustrating the proposed concrete
     syntax should soon become available. Readers are encouraged to
     test the proposal on their own specifications.

     An extension of this proposal to structured and architectural
     specifications is to follow as soon as possible.

     The proposal concludes with a list of points to be resolved by
     discussion on the CoFI Language Design mailing list,
     cofi-language@brics.dk.

     Deadline for comments: Thursday 18 September 1997!

     The author thanks Michel Bidoit, Christine Choppy, Bernd
     Krieg-Brückner, Till Mossakowski, and Frédéric Voisin for their
     energetic reactions to questionaires and tentative proposals, and
     for their willingness to make compromises. The responsibility for
     any infelicities in the present proposal is, however, entirely the
     author's.

Contents

   * 1 Introduction
   * 2 Input Syntax and Display Format
   * 3 Associativity and Precedence
   * 4 Identifiers
   * 5 Comments and Annotations
   * 6 Particular Issues for Discussion
   * References

(8 pages)