Yes, Penix's "lsl2html" tool converts an LSL input file to HTML, so it can be browsed over the net. It can be found at the following URL. http://www.ece.uc.edu/~kbse/lsl2html/ Unfortunately, Penix's tool has a few problems that have never been fixed. Instead, you might want to use Leavens's tool "lcpp2html", which is available from the following URL. http://www.cs.iastate.edu/~leavens/lcpp2html.html

Yes, there actually is a version of "spiderweb" specialized for use with LSL. If you are really a fan of such fancy systems, you can find it by using the literate programming library's URL. http://www.desy.de/user/projects/LitProg.html However, we have found that using the "noweb" system is much easier for most people, and nearly as good. You can get noweb from the literate programming library (see above), or directly from the following URL. http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~nr/noweb/intro.

You can get the MIT releases of the LSL checker using the world-wide web, starting at the following URL. http://www.sds.lcs.mit.edu/spd/larch/lsl.html You can also get the MIT release by anonymous ftp from the following URL. ftp://ftp.sds.lcs.mit.edu/pub/Larch/LSL/ Iowa State, the Larch/C++ group has made available later beta releases of the LSL checker that fix problems with its profligate use of space. You can get the sources for Unix and Windows 95 executables from the following URL.

If "we" (PHP coders) could compile PHP, that would be really good. If you help PHP coders by making a converting tool, then scriptol will become interesting. It's different if you have to recode a script or only modify it a bit after conversion. Scriptol currently compiles Scriptol source to PHP or C++. No need to recode anything, just use it directly from scriptol. Include the file for PHP or the library or object file for C++.

First off, hypertext is the concept of creating documents which are linked to other documents in such a way that the reader has the option of reading a document from start to finish (normal linear reading -- like a book), or, by following those links, can pick up other, hopefully related information that can enhance the understanding.

The main difference between LSL and a Larch BISL is that in LSL one specifies mathematical theories of the operators that are used in the pre- and postcondition specifications of a Larch BISL. Thus LSL is used to specify mathematical models and auxiliary functions, and the a Larch BISL is used to specify program modules that are to be implemented in some particular programming language.

The Larch Shared Language (LSL) (see [Guttag-Horning93], Chapter 4, and [Guttag-Horning-Modet90]) is a language for specifying mathematical theories. LSL is a kind of equational algebraic specification language [Guttag75] [Guttag-Horning78] [Goguen-Thatcher-Wagner78] [Ehrig-Mahr85] [Futatsugi-etal85] [Mosses96] [Loeckx-Ehrich-Wolf96]. That is, specifications in LSL mainly consist of first-order equations between terms.

Besides this FAQ, the best place to look is probably your own computer system. You should have a manual page for the LSL checker, if it's installed on your system. Try the Unix command man lsl to see it. You should also look for a directory (such as '/usr/larch/LSL') where the installation of LSL is found. In that directory, you will find a subdirectory 'Doc', where there is some documentation on the checker. See section 2.

The sections of an LSL trait are determined by the LSL grammar [Guttag-Horning-Modet90]. (See section 2.3 Where can I get a checker for LSL?, for a more recent grammar, which is found in the file 'Doc/lsl3_1.y', for version 3.1, and 'Doc/lsl3_2.y', for version 3.2.

LSL trait denotes a theory, which is a collection of true formulas (of sort Bool). This theory contains "the trait's assertions, the conventional axioms of first-order logic, everything that follows from them, and nothing else" (see [Guttag-Horning93], p. 37). For a brief introduction to these ideas, see Chapter 2 of [Guttag-Horning93]; for general background on equational logic, see [Ehrig-Mahr85] or [Loeckx-Ehrich-Wolf96].

Technically, no; all functions specified in LSL are total (see section 2.14 What is the meaning of an LSL specification?). Thus every operator specified in LSL takes on some value for every combination of arguments. What you can do is to underspecify such an operator, by not specifying what its value is on all arguments. For example, the operator head in the handbook trait List (see [Guttag-Horning93], p. 173) is underspecified in this sense, because no value is specified for head(empty).

No, you don't have to specify everything completely in LSL. It's a good idea, in fact, to only specify the aspects that are important for what you are doing. For example, if you want to reason about graph data structures, it's best to not (at first, anyway) try to specify the theory of graphs in great detail. Put in what you want, and go with that. (This won't hurt anything, because whatever you need to prove you'll be forced to add eventually.

According to Guaspari (posting to the larch-interest mailing list, on March 8, 1995), "the commonest 'purely mathematical' mistakes" in trait definitions occur when one uses structural induction "over constructors that don't freely generate a sort". To understand this, consider his example, which includes the handbook trait Set (see [Guttag-Horning93], page 167).

The first tip helps you write down an algebraic specification of a sort that is intended to be used as an abstract data type (see [Guttag-Horning78], Section 3.4, and [Guttag-Horning93], Section 4.9). The idea is to divide the set of operators of your sort into generators and observers. A constructor returns your sort, while an observer takes your sort in at least one argument and returns some more primitive sort (such as Bool). The tip (quoted from [Guttag-Horning93], p.

The most commonly-used handbook of LSL traits is Guttag and Horning's handbook ([Guttag-Horning93], Appendix A). This can be obtained by anonymous ftp with the LSL checker (see section 2.3 Where can I get a checker for LSL?). A hypertext version is on-line in http://www.research.digital.com/SRC/larch/toc.html A general resource for all known handbooks that are publically available is found on the world-wide web, at the following URL. http://www.cs.iastate.edu/~leavens/Handbooks.

You can get a LaTeX style file, 'larch.sty', and a macro file defining a bunch of mathematical symbols, 'larchmath.tex', by anonymous ftp from the following URL. ftp://ftp.cs.iastate.edu/pub/larch/tex The documentation for 'larch.sty' says that it is to be used with LaTeX 2.09. However, it can be used with LaTeX2e. To do so, put the following lines at the start of your LaTeX input.

Information entered into the program is stored and maintained in a specialized and secure facility.  The program complies with federal privacy and security standards.  All data is de-identified and all site information is confidential.  Sites retain ownership of their data and have ongoing access to their own data. If you would like a copy of the security policies governing the management of the PMT, send an e-mail to gwtg@outcome.com.

Hypertext, a word invented by Ted Nelson that has now become shopworn from overuse, simply designates a collection of digitized documents, connected by links, more or less structured, and equipped with a navigational interface. The greater the structure, the more it resembles a database; the less the structure, the more it resembles chaos.

I must say I'm not really qualified to speak much on this topic, but I do know that it's more common to retrofit mills for CNC than lathes - and I'm sure standard kits to do this are available for the more common Bridgeport type machines. For those doing it themselves, it really isn't any harder than converting a lathe really, just one more axis to fit with a motor and away you go.