References

  1. P.-L. Curien & H. Herbelin (2000): The duality of computation. In: M. Odersky & P. Wadler: ICFP '00, SIGPLAN Notices 35. ACM, pp. 233–243. Available at http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/351240.351262.
  2. P.-L. Curien & G. Munch-Maccagnoni (2010): The Duality of Computation under Focus. In: C.S. Calude & V. Sassone: TCS 2010, IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology 323. Springer, pp. 165–181. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15240-5_13.
  3. V. Danos, J.-B. Joinet & H. Schellinx (1997): A New Deconstructive Logic: Linear Logic. J. Symb. Log. 62(3), pp. 755–807. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2275572.
  4. P. Dehornoy & V. van Oostrom (2008): Z, Proving Confluence by Monotonic Single-Step Upperbound Functions. In: Logical Models of Reasoning and Computation (LMRC-08).
  5. J. Espírito Santo, R. Matthes, K. Nakazawa & L. Pinto (2013): Monadic translation of classical sequent calculi. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 23(6), pp. 1111–1162. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0960129512000436.
  6. A. Filinski (2007): On the relations between monadic semantics. Theor. Comput. Science 375, pp. 41–75. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2006.12.027.
  7. J-Y. Girard (1991): A new constructive logic: classic logic. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 1(3), pp. 255–296. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0960129500001328.
  8. J-Y. Girard, Y. Lafont & P. Taylor (1989): Proofs and Types. Cambridge University Press.
  9. J. Hatcliff & O. Danvy (1994): A generic account of continuation-passing styles. In: H.-J. Boehm, B. Lang & D.M. Yellin: POPL'94. ACM, pp. 458–471. Available at http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/174675.178053.
  10. H. Herbelin (2005): C'est maintenant qu'on calcule. Habilitation Thesis.
  11. P. Levy (2006): Call-by-push-value: decomposing call-by-value and call-by-name. Higher Order and Symbolic Computation 19(4), pp. 377–414. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10990-006-0480-6.
  12. E. Moggi (1991): Notions of Computation and Monads. Inf. Comput. 93(1), pp. 55–92. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0890-5401(91)90052-4.
  13. G. Munch-Maccagnoni (2009): Focalisation and Classical Realisability. In: E. Grädel & R. Kahle: CSL 2009, LNCS 5771. Springer, pp. 409–423. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04027-6_30.
  14. E. Polonovski (2004): Strong normalization oføverline λμtilde07Eμ with explicit substitutions. In: I. Walukiewicz: FoSSaCS 2004, LNCS 2987. Springer, pp. 423–437. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24727-2_30.
  15. V. van Oostrom & F. van Raamsdonk (1994): Weak orthogonality implies confluence: the higher-order case. In: A. Nerode & Y. Matiyasevich: LFCS '94, LNCS 813. Springer, pp. 379–392. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-58140-5_35.
  16. N. Zeilberger (2008): On the unity of duality. Ann. Pure App. Logic 153(1-3), pp. 66–96. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apal.2008.01.001.

Comments and questions to: eptcs@eptcs.org
For website issues: webmaster@eptcs.org