Commit aecc0a4a by Mickael Laurent

### write valsemantic in paper instead of refering to appendix

parent 4e1e83e5
 ... ... @@ -139,13 +139,15 @@ call-by-value weak reduction for a $\lambda$-calculus with pairs, enriched with \end{array} \] where $\valsemantic t$ denotes, intuitively, the set of values that have type $t$ (see \Appendix\ref{app:parallel} for a formal definition where $\valsemantic t$ denotes, intuitively, the set of values that have type $t$. Formally, $\valsemantic t$ is inductively defined by as: $\valsemantic c \eqdef \{\basic{c}\}$,\,\,\, $\valsemantic{\lambda^{\wedge_{i\in I}s_i\to t_i} x.e} \eqdef \{t\alt t\simeq (\wedge_{i\in I}s_i\to t_i)\wedge(\wedge_{j\in J}s_j'\to t_j'), t\not\leq\Empty\}$,\,\,\, $\valsemantic{(v_1,v_2)} \eqdef \valsemantic{v_1}\times\valsemantic{v_2}$ \footnote{This definition may look complicated but it is necessary to handle some corner cases for negated arrow types (cf.\ rule \Rule{Abs-} in Section~\ref{sec:static}). For instance, it states that $\lambda^{\Int{\to}\Int}.x\in (\Int{\to}\Int)\wedge\neg(\Bool{\to}\Int)$.}).\\ \valsemantic{(\Int{\to}\Int)\wedge\neg(\Bool{\to}\Int)}\$.}.\\ Contextual reductions are defined by the following evaluation contexts: ... ...
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!