{"title":"搜索程序结构","authors":"Gabriel Scherer","doi":"10.4230/LIPIcs.SNAPL.2017.15","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The community of programming language research loves the Curry-Howard correspondence between proofs and programs. Cut-elimination as computation, theorems for free, call/cc as excluded middle, dependently typed languages as proof assistants, etc. Yet we have, for all these years, missed an obvious observation: “the structure of programs corresponds to the structure of proof search”. For pure programs and intuitionistic logic, more is known about the latter than the former. We think we know what programs are, but logicians","PeriodicalId":231548,"journal":{"name":"Summit on Advances in Programming Languages","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Search for Program Structure\",\"authors\":\"Gabriel Scherer\",\"doi\":\"10.4230/LIPIcs.SNAPL.2017.15\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The community of programming language research loves the Curry-Howard correspondence between proofs and programs. Cut-elimination as computation, theorems for free, call/cc as excluded middle, dependently typed languages as proof assistants, etc. Yet we have, for all these years, missed an obvious observation: “the structure of programs corresponds to the structure of proof search”. For pure programs and intuitionistic logic, more is known about the latter than the former. We think we know what programs are, but logicians\",\"PeriodicalId\":231548,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Summit on Advances in Programming Languages\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Summit on Advances in Programming Languages\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.SNAPL.2017.15\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Summit on Advances in Programming Languages","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.SNAPL.2017.15","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
The community of programming language research loves the Curry-Howard correspondence between proofs and programs. Cut-elimination as computation, theorems for free, call/cc as excluded middle, dependently typed languages as proof assistants, etc. Yet we have, for all these years, missed an obvious observation: “the structure of programs corresponds to the structure of proof search”. For pure programs and intuitionistic logic, more is known about the latter than the former. We think we know what programs are, but logicians
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
