Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-jqctd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-22T22:16:26.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Encapsulating non-determinacy in an abstract data type with determinate semantics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

F. Warren Burton
School of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University, British Columbia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]


Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A parallel program may be indeterminate so that it can adapt its behavior to the number of processors available.

Indeterminate programs are hard to write, understand, modify or verify. They are impossible to debug, since they may not behave the same from one run to the next.

We propose a new construct, a polymorphic abstract data type called an improving value, with operations that have indeterminate behavior but simple determinate semantics. These operations allow the type of indeterminate behavior required by many parallel algorithms.

We define improving values in the context of a functional programming language, but the technique can be used in procedural programs as well.

Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991


Bird, Richard and Wadler, Philip. 1988. Introduction to Functional Programming. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Burton, F. Warren. 1985 a. Controlling speculative computation in a parallel functional programming language. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, pp. 453–8, Denver, Colorado(May).Google Scholar
Burton, F. Warren. 1985 b. Speculative computation, parallelism, and functional programming. IEEE Trans. Comput., C-34(12): 1190–3 (12.).Google Scholar
Burton, F. Warren. 1987. Functional programming for concurrent and distributed computing. Comput. J., 30(5): 437–50 (10.).Google Scholar
Burton, F. Warren. 1989. Indeterminate behavior with determinate semantics in parallel programs. In Proc. Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architecture.Google Scholar
Eager, Derek L., Zahorjan, John and Lazowska, Edward D. 1989. Speedup versus efficiency in parallel systems. IEEE Trans. Comput., 38(3): 408–23. (03.).Google Scholar
Grit, D.H. and Page, R.L. 1981. Deleting irrelevant tasks in an expression-oriented multiprocessor system. ACM Trans. Prog. Lang. and Syst., 3(1): 4959 (01.).Google Scholar
Horowitz, Ellis and Sahni, Sartaj. 1978. Fundamentals of Computer Algorithms. Computer Science Press.Google Scholar
Hudak, Paul and Keller, Robert M. 1982. Garbage collection and task deletion in distributed applicative processing systems. In Proc. 1982 ACM Symposium on LISP and Functional Programming, pp. 168–78, Pittsburgh, Penn. (08.).Google Scholar
Nilsson, Nils J. 1971. Problem-Solving Methods in Artificial Intelligence. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Turner, David A. 1985 a. Functional programs as executable specifications. In Hoare, C. A. R. and Shepherdson, J. (editors), Mathematical Logic and Programming Languages, pp. 2954. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Turner, David A. 1985 b. Miranda: A non-strict functional language with polymorphic types. In Jouannaud, Jean-Pierre (editor), Functional Programming- Languages and Computer Architecture, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 201, pp. 116. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Turner, David A. 1986. An overview of Miranda. SIGPLAN Notices, 21(12): 158–66 (12.).Google Scholar
Burton, F. WarrenSchool of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A IS6Google Scholar
Submit a response


No Discussions have been published for this article.