References

  1. F. Aschieri, A. Ciabattoni & F.A. Genco (2017): Gödel logic: From natural deduction to parallel computation. In: LICS 2017, pp. 1–12, doi:10.1109/LICS.2017.8005076.
  2. H.P. Barendregt (1984): The Lambda Calculus, its Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: North-Holland, doi:10.1016/c2009-0-14341-6.
  3. G. Boudol (1989): Towards a lambda-calculus for concurrent and communicating systems. In: TAPSOFT 1998, pp. 149–161, doi:10.1007/3-540-50939-9_130.
  4. P.-L. Curien & H. Herbelin (2000): The duality of computation. In: ICFP 2000, pp. 233–243, doi:10.1145/351240.351262.
  5. V. Danos & J.-L. Krivine (2000): Disjunctive Tautologies as Synchronisation Schemes. CSL 2000, pp. 292–301, doi:10.1007/3-540-44622-2_19.
  6. C. Ene & T. Muntean (1999): Expressiveness of point-to-point versus broadcast communications. In: FCT 1999, pp. 258–268, doi:10.1007/3-540-48321-7_21.
  7. J. Epstein, A.P. Black & S.L. Peyton Jones (2011): Towards Haskell in the cloud. In: ACM Haskell Symposium 2011, pp. 118–129, doi:10.1145/2034675.2034690.
  8. A. Fuggetta, G.P. Picco & G. Vigna (1998): Understanding Code Mobility. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 24(5), pp. 342–361, doi:10.1109/32.685258.
  9. J.-Y. Girard, Y. Lafont & P. Taylor (1989): Proofs and Types. Cambridge University Press. Available at http://www.paultaylor.eu/stable/prot.pdf.
  10. T.G. Griffin (1990): A Formulae-as-Type Notion of Control. In: POPL 1990, pp. 47–58, doi:10.1145/96709.96714.
  11. P. de Groote (1995): A Simple Calculus of Exception Handling. In: TLCA 1995, pp. 201–215, doi:10.1007/BFb0014054.
  12. K. Honda & M. Tokoro (1991): An Object Calculus for Asynchronous Communication. In: ECOOP 1991, pp. 133–147, doi:10.1007/BFb0057019.
  13. W.A. Howard (1980): The formulae-as-types notion of construction. In: To H. B. Curry: Essays on Combinatory Logic, Lambda Calculus, and Formalism. Academic Press, pp. 479–491.
  14. J.-L. Krivine (1990): Lambda-calcul types et modèles. In: Studies in Logic and Foundations of Mathematics. Masson, pp. 1–176.
  15. J.-L. Krivine (2009): Realizability in classical logic. Panoramas et synthèses, pp. 197–229. Available at https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00154500.
  16. R. Milner (1992): Functions as Processes. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 2(2), pp. 119–141, doi:10.1017/S0960129500001407.
  17. M. Parigot (1997): Proofs of Strong Normalization for Second-Order Classical Natural Deduction. J. Symbolic Logic 62(4), pp. 1461–1479, doi:10.2307/2275652.
  18. D. Prawitz (1971): Ideas and Results in Proof Theory. In: Proceedings of the Second Scandinavian Logic Symposium, pp. 235–307, doi:10.2307/2271904.
  19. D. Sangiorgi & D. Walker (2003): The pi-calculus: a Theory of Mobile Processes. Cambridge University Press.
  20. M.H.B. Sørensen & P. Urzyczyn (1998): Lectures on the Curry-Howard Isomorphism. Elsevier, doi:10.1016/s0049-237x(06)80005-4.
  21. B. Toninho, L. Caires & F. Pfenning (2013): Higher-Order processes, functions, and sessions: a monadic integration. In: ESOP 2013, pp. 350–369, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-37036-6_20.
  22. P. Wadler (2003): Call-by-value is dual to call-by-name. SIGPLAN Notices 38(9), pp. 189–201, doi:10.1145/944746.944723.
  23. P. Wadler (2012): Propositions as Sessions. J. of Functional Programming 24, pp. 384–418, doi:10.1145/2398856.2364568.
  24. P. Wadler (2015): Propositions as Types. Communications of the ACM 58(12), pp. 75–84, doi:10.1145/2699407.

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