Abadi, M. and L., Cardelli (1996). A Theory of Objects. Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Abadi, M. and C., Fournet (2001). Mobile values, new names, and secure communication. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 104–15, Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar

Aczel, P. (1977). An introduction to inductive definitions. In Jon, Barwise, editor, Handbook of Mathematical Logic, chapter C.7, pp. 783–818. North-Holland.Google Scholar

Allen., J. (1978). The Anatomy of LISP. Computer Science Series. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Allen, S. (1987). A non-type-theoretic definition of Martin-Löf's types. In LICS, pp. 215–21. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar

Allen, S. F., M., Bickford, R. L., Constable, R., Eaton, C., Kreitz, L., Lorigo, and E., Moran (2005). Innovations in computational type theory using NuPRL. J. Appl. Logic, 4: 428–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andreoli, J.-M. (1992). Logic programming with focusing proofs in linear logic. J. Log. Comput., 2: 297–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ariola, Z. M. and M., Felleisen (1997). The call-by-need lambda calculus. J. Funct. Prog., 7: 265–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arvind, R., S., Nikhil, and K., Pingali (1986). I-structures: Data structures for parallel computing. In J. H., Fasel and R. M., Keller, editors, Graph Reduction, Volume 279 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science Series, pp. 336–69. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Avron, A. (1991). Simple consequence relations. Inf. Comput., 92:105–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barendregt, H. (1984). The Lambda Calculus, Its Syntax and Semantics. Volume 103 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics. North-Holland.Google Scholar

Barendregt, H. (1992). Lambda calculi with types. In S., Abramsky, D. M., Gabbay, and T. S. E, Maibaum, editors, Handbook of Logic in Computer Science, Volume 2 of Computational Structures Series. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bertot, Y., G., Huet, J.-J., Lévy, and G., Plotkin (editors) (2009). From Semantics to Computer Science: Essays in Honor of Gilles Kahn. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blelloch, G. E. (1990). Vector Models for Data-Parallel Computing. MIT Pres.Google Scholar

Blelloch, G. E. and J., Greiner (1995). Parallelism in sequential functional languages. In FPCA, pp. 226–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blelloch, G. E. and J., Greiner (1996). A provable time and space efficient implementation of NESL. In ICFP, pp. 213–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brookes, S. D. (2002). The essence of parallel Algol. Inf. Comput., 179(1): 118–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burstall, R. M., D. B., MacQueen, and D., Sannella (1980). Hope: An experimental applicative language. In LISP Conference, pp. 136–43.Google Scholar

Buss, S. R. (editor). (1998). Handbook of Proof Theory. Elsevier.

Cardelli, L. (1988). Structural subtyping and the notion of power type. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 70–9. Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar

Cardelli, L. (1997). Program fragments, linking, and modularization. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 266–77. Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar

Castagna, G. and B. C., Pierce (1994). Decidable bounded quantification. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 151–62. Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar

Church, A. (1941). The Calculi of Lambda-Conversion. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Colmerauer, A. and P., Roussel (1993). The birth of Prolog. In Proceedings of the Second ACM SIGPLAN Conference on the History of Programming Languages, HOPL-II, pp. 37–52. Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar

Constable, R. L. (1986). Implementing Mathematics with the Nupri Proof Development System. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Constable, R. L. (1998). Types in logic, mathematics, and programming. In S. R., Buss, editor, Handbook of Proof Theory, chapter X. Elsevier.Google Scholar

Constable, R. L. and S. F., Smith (1987). Partial objects in constructive type theory. In LICS, pp. 183–93. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar

Cook, W. R. (2009). On understanding data abstraction, revisited. In OOPSLA, pp. 557–72.Google Scholar

Cousineau, G. and M., Mauny (1998). The Functional Approach to Programming. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crary, K. (2009). A syntactic account of singleton types via hereditary substitution. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Logical Frameworks and MetaLanguages: Theory and Practice, LFMTP '09, pp. 21–29. Association for Computing Machinary.Google Scholar

Dreyer, D. (2005). Understanding and Evolving the ML Module System. Ph.D. dissertation. Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar

Engberg, U. and M., Nielsen. (2000). A calculus of communicating systems with label passing — ten years after. In G. D., Plotkin, C., Stirling, and M., Tofte (editors), Proof, Language, and Interaction, Essays in Honour of Robin Milner, pp. 599–622. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Felleisen, M. and R., Hieb (1992). The revised report on the syntactic theories of sequential control and state. TCS: Theoretical Computer Science, 103.Google Scholar

Gelernter, D. (1985). Generative communication in Linda. ACM Trans. Prog. Lang. Syst., 7: 80–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gentzen, G. (1969). Investigations into logical deduction. In M. E., Szabo, editor, The Collected Papers of Gerhard Gentzen, pp. 68–213. North-Holland.Google Scholar

Girard, J.-Y. (1972). Interpretation fonctionelle et elimination des coupures de l'arithmetique d'ordre superieur. These d'etat, Universite Paris VII.Google Scholar

Girard, J.-Y. (1989). Proofs and Types. Translated by P., Taylor and Y., Lafont. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gödel, K. (1980). On a hitherto unexploited extension of the finitary standpoint. Translated by W., Hodges and B., Watson. Philos. Logic, 9: 133–42.Google Scholar

Gordon, M. J., A. J., Milner, and C., P. Wadsworth. Edinburgh LCF, Volume 78 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science Series. Springer-Verlag.

Greiner, J. and G. E., Blelloch (1999). A provably time-efficient parallel implementation of full speculation. ACM Trans. Prog. Lang. Syst., 21: 240–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Griffin, T. (1990). A formulae-as-types notion of control. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 47–58. Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar

Halstead, R. H. Jr. (1985). Multilisp: A language for concurrent symbolic computation. ACM Trans. Prog. Lang. Syst., 7: 501–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harper, R. (1992). Constructing type systems over an operational semantics. J. Symb. Comput., 14: 71–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harper, R. (1994). A simplified account of polymorphic references. Inf. Process. Lett., 51: 201–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harper, R. and M., Lillibridge (1994). A type-theoretic approach to higher order modules with sharing. In Proceecings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 123–37. Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar

Harper, R., J. C., Mitchell, and E., Moggi (1990). Higher-order modules and the phase distinction. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 341–54. Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar

Harper, R., F., Honsell, and G., Plotkin (1993). A framework for defining logics. J. Assoc. Comput. Mach., 40: 194–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hinze, R. and J., Jeuring (2003). Generic Haskell: practice and theory. In R. C., Backhouse and J., Gibbons, editors, Generic Programming, Volume 2793 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 1–56. Springer.Google Scholar

Hoare, C. A. R. (1978). Communicating sequential processes. Commun. ACM, 21: 666–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hoare, T. (2009). Null references: the billion dollar mistake. Paper presented at QCon.Google Scholar

Jones, S. L. P. (2003). Haskell 98: Introduction. J. Funct. Program., 13: 0–6.Google Scholar

Kleene, S. C. (1952). Introduction to Metamathematics. van Nostrand.Google Scholar

Kowalski, R. A. (1988). The early years of logic programming. Commun. ACM, 31: 38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and Refutations: The Logic of Mathematical Discovery. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Landin, P. J. (1965). A correspondence between Algol 60 and Church's lambda notation. Commun. ACM, 8: 89–101; 158–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lee, D. K., K., Crary, and R., Harper (2007). Towards a mechanized metatheory of Standard ML. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 173–84. Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar

Leroy, X. (1994). Manifest types, modules, and separate compilation. In Pro. ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 109–22, 1994.Google Scholar

Leroy, X. (1995). Applicative functors and fully transparent higher-order modules. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 142–53. Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar

Licata, D. R. and R., Harper (2010). A monadic formalization of ML5. In K., Crary and M., Miculan, editors, Logical Frameworks and Metalanguages: Theory and Practice, Volume 34 of EPTCS Series, pp. 69–83. Association for Computing Mechinery.Google Scholar

Lillibridge, M. (1997). Translucent Sums: A Foundation for Higher-Order Module Systems. Ph.D. dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science.Google Scholar

Liskov, B. and J. M., Wing (1994). A behavioral notion of subtyping. ACM Trans. Prog. Lang. Syst., 16: 1811–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

MacLane, S. (1998). Categories for the Working Mathematician (2nd ed). Graduate Texts in Mathematics Series. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

MacQueen, D. B. (1986). Using dependent types to express modular structure. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languges, pp. 277–86. Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar

MacQueen, D. B. (2009). Kahn networks at the dawn of functional programming. In Bertot, et al., editors, From Semantics to Computer Science: Essays in Honor of Gilles Kahn, chapter 5. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Martin-Löf, P. (1980). Constructive mathematics and computer programming. In Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science IV, pp. 153–75. North-Holland.Google Scholar

Martin-Löf, P. (1983). On the meanings of the logical constants and the justifications of the logical laws. Unpublished lecture notes.Google Scholar

Martin-Löf, P. (1984). Intuitionistic Type Theory. Studies in Proof Theory Series. Bibliopolis.Google Scholar

Martin-Löf, P. (1987). Truth of a proposition, evidence of a judgement, validity of a proof. Synthese, 73: 407–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCarthy, J. (1965). LISP1.5 Programmer's Manual. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Mendler, N. P. (1987). Recursive types and type constraints in second-order lambda calculus. In LICS, pp. 30–6. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar

Milner, R. (1978). A theory of type polymorphism in programming. JCSS, 17: 348–75.Google Scholar

Milner, R. (1999). Communicating and Mobile Systems — the Pi-Calculus. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Milner, R., M., Tofte, R., Harper, and D., MacQueen (1997). The Definition of Standard ML (Revised). MIT Press.Google Scholar

Mitchell, J. C. (1984). Coercion and type inference. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 175–85. Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar

Mitchell, J. C. (1986). Representation independence and data abstraction. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 263–76. Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar

Mitchell, J. C. (1996). Foundations for Programming Languages. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Mitchell, J. C. and G. D., Plotkin (1988). Abstract types have existential type. ACM Trans. Prog. Lang. Syst., 10: 470–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Murphy, T. VII, K., Crary, R., Harper, and F., Pfenning (2004). A symmetric modal lambda calculus for distributed computing. In LICS, pp. 286–95. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar

Murthy, C. R. (1991). An evaluation semantics for classical proofs. In LICS, pp. 96–107. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar

Nanevski, A. (2003). From dynamic binding to state via modal possibility. In PPDP, pp. 207–18. Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar

Nederpelt, R. P., J. H., Geuvers, and R. C., deVrijer (editors) (1994). Selected Papers on Automath, Volume 133 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics Series. North-Holland.

Ocaml (2012). Available at http://caml.inria.fr/ocaml/.

Park, D. M. R. (1981). Concurrency and automata on infinite sequences. In P., Deussen, editor, Theoretical Computer Science, Volume 104 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science Series, pp. 167–83. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pierce, B. C. (2002). Types and Programming Languages. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Pierce, B. C. (2004). Advanced Topics in Types and Programming Languages. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Pitts, A. M. (1998). Existential types: Logical relations and operational equivalence. In K. G., Larsen, S., Skyum, and G., Winskel, editors, ICALP, Volume 1443 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science Series, pp. 309–26. Springer.Google Scholar

Pitts, A. M. (2000). Operational semantics and program equivalence. In G., Barthe, P., Dybjer, L., Pinto, and J., Saraiva, editors, APPSEM, Volume 2395 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science Series, pp. 378–412. Springer.Google Scholar

Pitts, A. M. and I. D. B., Stark (1993). Observable properties of higher order functions that dynamically create local names, or what's new? In A. M., Borzyszkowski and S., Sokolowski, editors, MFCS, Volume 711 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science Series, pp. 122–141. Springer.Google Scholar

Plotkin, G. D. (1977). LCF considered as a programming language. Theor. Comput. Sci., 5: 223–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Plotkin, G. D. (1981). A structural approach to operational semantics. Technical Report DAIMIFN-19, Aarhus University, Computer Science Department.Google Scholar

Plotkin, G. D. (2004). The origins of structural operational semantics. J. Logic Algebraic Program., 60: 3–15.Google Scholar

Reppy, J. H. (1999). Concurrent Programming in ML. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reynolds, J. C. (1974). Towards a theory of type structure. In B., Robinet, editor, Symposium on Programming, Volume 19 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science Series, pp. 408–23. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reynolds, J. C. (1980). Using category theory to design implicit conversions and generic operators. In N. D., Jones, editor, Semantics-Directed Compiler Generation, Volume 94 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science Series, pp. 211–58. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reynolds, J. C. (1981). The essence of Algol. In Proceedings of the 1981 International Symposium on Algorithmic Languages, pp. 345–72. North-Holland.Google Scholar

Reynolds, J. C. (1983). Types, abstraction, and parametric polymorphism. In Information Processing '83, pp. 513–23. North-Holland.Google Scholar

Reynolds, J. C. (1993). The discoveries of continuations. Lisp Symbol. Comput., 6: 233–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reynolds, J. C. (1998). Theories of Programming Languages. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rossberg, A., C. V., Russo, and D., Dreyer (2010). F-ing modules. In A., Kennedy and N., Benton, editors, TLDI, pp. 89–102. ACM.Google Scholar

Scott, D. (1980). Lambda calculus: Some models, some philosophy. In J., Barwise, H. J., Keisler, and K., Kunen, editors, The Kleene Symposium, pp. 223–65. North-Holland, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Scott, D. S. (1976). Data types as lattices. SIAM J. Comput., 5(3): 522–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Scott, D. S. (1982). Domains for denotational semantics. In M., Nielsen and E. M., Schmidt, editors, ICALP, volume 140 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 577–613. Springer.Google Scholar

Smyth, M. B. and G. D., Plotkin (1982). The category-theoretic solution of recursive domain equations. SIAM J. Comput., 11(4): 761–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Statman, R. (1985). Logical relations and the typed lambda-calculus. Information and Control, 65(2/3): 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Steele, G. L. (1990). Common Lisp: The Language (2nd ed.). Digital Press.Google Scholar

Stone, C. A. and R., Harper (2006). Extensional equivalence and singleton types. ACM Trans. Comput. Log., 7: 676–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Taylor, P. (1999). Practical Foundations of Mathematics. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Turner, D. (1987). An overview of Miranda. Bull. EATCS, 33: 103–14.Google Scholar

Wadler, P. (1989). Theorems for free! In FPCA, pp. 347–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wadler, P. (2003). Call-by-value is dual to call-by-name. In C., Runciman, and O., Shivers, editors, ICFP, pp. 189–201. Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar

Wand, M. (1979). Fixed-point constructions in order-enriched categories. Theor. Comput. Sci., 8: 13–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Watkins, K., I., Cervesato, F., Pfenning, and D., Walker (2008). Specifying properties of concurrent computations in clf. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci., 199: 67–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wright, A. K. and M., Felleisen (1994). A syntactic approach to type soundness. Inf. Comput., 115: 38–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zeilberger, N. (2008). On the unity of duality. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic, 153: 66–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar