Re: OO vs. CSP - Papers, Arguments?

Subject: Re: OO vs. CSP - Papers, Arguments?

From: Alan Grover <alan.grover@xxxxxxxxx>

Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 07:59:54 -0400

Delivery-date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:00:14 +0100

Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=ESL9U7noc/yGQvKLVVcz+GjfxAoQ+jL5+lhIvFn+RtKsXV5z4kqZ4c9+EYtKkbiYX9MRVR2iWFoV+knsBj9aIFWjDy1wew3UFtEDH0F64tqfyXeK5y2MlX5oSZPxkeVGsWaktYZ/smn2lcfNv+qJ3vRkGYNRXxZd34/1VH31DuQ=

Envelope-to: phw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In-reply-to: <B6415470-75B3-47EA-935E-A93AD7C69643@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

References: <D90489B77ED9F8439A3C784F732BEC9C737DD1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <161915060510191924o5ae6424ev54912d8b8a5130ce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <B6415470-75B3-47EA-935E-A93AD7C69643@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Sender: owner-occam-com@xxxxxxxxxx

On 10/20/05, Ian East <ian.east@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 20 Oct 2005, at 03:24, Alan Grover wrote:

>
>
> On 10/18/05, Koehne Kai <Kai.Koehne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Regarding inheritance, most OO languages do not enforce that the
> dynamic behaviour of an object of the extended class in any way
> extends the behaviour of an object of the base class. For me it is
> still unclear how a "correct" extension of a dynamic behaviour
> should be defined, anyway ...
>
> But if you decide to explore that, I for one would like to read the
> paper! :)
Twan Basten and others at Eindhoven had a lot to say about
"inheritance of behaviour". Can mail you copy of their paper if you
like. It's based on their own process algebra and runs to 84 pages
(600kb).

Ian East