BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

William Harrison

William Harrison appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Programming Languages

Catalog footprint

What is connected

2works
1topics
2close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2011arXiv

Language Support for Declarative Future Commitments

Sequential programming and work-flow programming are two useful, but radically different, ways of describing computational processing. Of the two, it is sequential programming that we teach all programmers and support by programming languages, whether in procedural, objectoriented, or functional paradigms. We teach workflow as a secondary style of problem decomposition for use in special situations, like distributed or networked processing. Both styles offer complementary advantages, but the fact that they employ radically different models for ownership of continuations interferes with our ability to integrate them in a way that allows them to be taught and used in a single programming language. This paper describes a programming language construct, declarative future commitments, that permit better integration of the two.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Some Measurements of Nullable and Non-Nullable Parameter Declarations in Relation to Software Malleability

The usual advantages put forward for including nullability declarations in the type systems of programming languages are that they improve program reliability or performance. But there is another, entirely different, reason for doing so. In the right context, this information enables the software artifacts we produce, the objects and methods, to exhibit much greater malleability. For declaratively typed languages, we can obtain greater software malleability by extending the model of method call so that assurance of a method's availability can be provided by any non-nullable parameter, not simply the target parameter, and by allowing the method's implementation to reside in classes or objects other than the target.. This paper examines the question of whether this hypothetical improvement in software malleability is consistent with existing programming practice by examining the question of the extent to which methods in existing software have multiplicities of non-nullable parameters. The circumstance occurs frequently enough to provide an important reason to introduce declarations of nullability into programming languages.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access