Commit 30416c7c authored by Robbert's avatar Robbert

Update README.md

parent 0b08db9f
......@@ -111,22 +111,18 @@ mechanization in Coq:
There are a number of small differences between the paper presentation
of Actris and the formalization in Coq, that are briefly discussed here.
- **Connectives for physical ownership of channels**
In the paper, physical ownership of a channel is formalized using a single
- **Connectives for physical ownership of channels**
In the paper, physical ownership of a channel is formalized using a single
connective `(c1,c2) ↣ (vs1,vs2)`, while the mechanization has two connectives
for the endpoints and one for connecting them, namely:
- `chan_own γ Left vs1` and `chan_own γ Right vs1`
- `is_chan N γ c1 c2`
Here, `γ` is a ghost name and `N` an invariant name. This setup is less
Here, `γ` is a ghost name and `N` an invariant name. This setup is less
intuitive but gives rise to a more practical Jacobs/Piessens-style spec of
`recv` that does not need a closing view shift (to handle the case that the
buffer is empty).
- **Later modalities in primitive rules for channels**
The primitive rules for `send` and `recv` (`send_spec` and `recv_spec` in
- **Later modalities in primitive rules for channels**
The primitive rules for `send` and `recv` (`send_spec` and `recv_spec` in
[theories/channel/channel.v](theories/channel/channel.v)) contain three later
(`▷`) modalities, which are omitted for brevity's sake in the paper. These
later modalities expose that these operations perform at least three steps in
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment