1

Abstract data types

The history of programming languages may be characterized as the genesis of

increasingly powerful abstractions to aid the development of reliable programs.

Abstract data types 8 1-1

• abstraction and types

• algebraic specification
• modules versus classes
• types as constraints
Additional keywords and phrases: control abstractions, data abstractions,
compiler support, description systems, behavioral specification, imple-
mentation specification

Slide 1-1: Abstract data types

In this chapter we will look at the notion of abstract data types, which may be
regarded as an essential constituent of object-oriented modeling. In particular,
we will study the notion of data abstraction from a foundational perspective,
that is based on a mathematical description of types. We start this chapter
by discussing the notion of types as constraints. Then, we look at the (first
order) algebraic specification of abstract data types, and we explore the trade-
offs between the traditional implementation of abstract data types by employing

1
2 Abstract data types

modules and the object-oriented approach employing classes. We conclude this

chapter by exploring the distinction between classes and types, as a preparation
for the treatment of (higher order) polymorphic type theories for object types and
inheritance in the next chapter.

1.1 Abstraction and types

The concern for abstraction may be regarded as the driving force behind the
development of programming languages (of which there are astoundingly many).
In the following we will discuss the role of abstraction in programming, and
especially the importance of types. We then briefly look at what mathematical
means we have available to describe types from a foundational perspective and
what we may (and may not) expect from types in object-oriented programming.

1.1.1 Abstraction in programming languages

In [Shaw84], an overview is given of how increasingly powerful abstraction mech-
anisms have shaped the programming languages we use today. See slide 1-2.

Abstraction – programming methodology 1-2

• control abstractions – structured programming

• data abstraction – information hiding
The kind of abstraction provided by ADTs can be supported by any
language with a procedure call mechanism (given that appropriate
protocols are developed and observed by the programmer). [DT88]

Slide 1-2: Abstraction and programming languages

Roughly, we may distinguish between two categories of abstractions: abstrac-

tions that aid in specifying control (including subroutines, procedures, if-then-else
constructs, while-constructs, in short the constructs promoted by the school of
structured programming in their battle against the goto); and abstractions that
allow us to hide the actual representation of the data employed in a program
(introduced to support the information hiding approach, originally advocated
in [Parnas72a]).
Although there is clearly a pragmatic interest involved in developing and
employing such abstractions, the concern with abstraction (and consequently
types) is ultimately motivated by a concern with programming methodology and,
as observed in [DT88], the need for reliable and maintainable software. However,
the introduction of language features is also often motivated by programmers’
desires for ease of coding and naturalness of expression.
In the same vein, although types were originally considered as a convenient
means to assist the compiler in producing efficient code, types have rapidly
been recognized as a way in which to capture the meaning of a program in an
Abstraction and types 3

implementation independent way. In particular, the notion of abstract data types

(which has, so to speak, grown out of data abstraction) has become a powerful
device (and guideline) to structure large software systems.
In practice, as the quotation from [DT88] in slide 1-2 indicates, we may employ
the tools developed for structured programming to realize abstract data types in
a program, but with the obvious disadvantage that we must rely on conventions
with regard to the reliability of these realizations. Support for abstract data types
(support in the sense as discussed in section ??) is offered (to some extent) by
languages such as Modula-2 and Ada by means of a syntactic module or package
construct, and (to a larger extent) by object-oriented languages in the form of
object classes. However, both realizations are of a rather ad hoc and pragmatic
nature, relying in the latter case on the metaphor of encapsulation and message
passing. The challenge to computer science in this area is to develop a notion
of types capturing the power of abstract data types in a form that is adequate
both from a pragmatic point of view (in the sense of allowing efficient language
support) and from a theoretical perspective (laying the foundation for a truly
declarative object-oriented approach to programming).

1.1.2 A foundational perspective – types as constraints

Object-oriented programming may be regarded as a declarative method of pro-
gramming, in the sense that it provides a computation model (expressed by
the metaphor of encapsulation and message passing) that is independent of a
particular implementation model. In particular, the inheritance subtype relation
may be regarded as a pure description of the relations between the entities
represented by the classes. Moreover, an object-oriented approach favors the
development of an object model that bears close resemblance to the entities and
their relations living in the application domain. However, the object-oriented
programming model is rarely introduced with the mathematical precision charac-
teristic of descriptions of the other declarative styles, for example the functional
and logic programming model. Criticizing, [DT88] remark that OOP is generally
expressed in philosophical terms, resulting in a proliferation of opinions concerning
what OOP really is.
From a type-theoretical perspective, our interest is to identify abstract data
types as elements of some semantic (read mathematical) domain and to charac-
terize their properties in an unambiguous fashion. See slide 1-3.
There seems to be almost no limit to the variety and sophistication of the
mathematical models proposed to characterize abstract data types and inher-
itance. We may make a distinction between first order approaches (based on
ordinary set theory) and higher order approaches (involving typed lambda calculus
and constructive logic).
The algebraic approach is a quite well-established method for the formal
specification of abstract data types. A type (or sort) in an algebra corresponds
to a set of elements upon which the operations of the algebra are defined. In
the next section, we will look at how equations may be used to characterize the
behavioral aspects of an abstract data type modeled by an algebra.
4 Abstract data types

Abstract data types – foundational perspective 1-3

• unambiguous values in some semantic domain

Mathematical models – types as constraints

• algebra – set oriented
• second order lambda calculus – polymorphic types
• constructive mathematics – formulas as types

Slide 1-3: Mathematical models for types

Second order lambda calculus has been used to model information hiding and
the polymorphism supported by inheritance and templates. In the next chapter
we will study this approach in more detail.
In both approaches, the meaning of a type is (ultimately) a set of elements
satisfying certain restrictions. However, in a more abstract fashion, we may regard
a type as specifying a constraint. The better we specify the constraint, the
more tightly the corresponding set of elements will be defined (and hence the
smaller the set). A natural consequence of the idea of types as constraints is
to characterize types by means of logical formulas. This is the approach taken
by type theories based on constructive logic, in which the notion of formulas as
types plays an important role. Although we will not study type theories based
on constructive logic explicitly, our point of view is essentially to regard types
as constraints, ranging from purely syntactical constraints (as expressed in a
signature) to semantic constraints (as may be expressed in contracts).
From the perspective of types as constraints, a typing system may contribute
to a language framework guiding a system designer’s conceptualization and sup-
porting the verification (based on the formal properties of the types employed)
of the consistency of the descriptive information provided by the program. Such
an approach is to be preferred (both from a pragmatic and theoretical point of
view) to an ad hoc approach employing special annotations and support mecha-
nisms, since these may become quite complicated and easily lead to unexpected
interactions.

Formal models There is a wide variety of formal models available in the litera-
ture. These include algebraic models (to characterize the meaning of abstract
data types), models based on the lambda-calculus and its extensions (which
are primarily used for a type theoretical analysis of object-oriented language
constructs), algebraic process calculi (which may be used to characterize the
behavior of concurrent objects), operational and denotational semantic models
(to capture structural and behavioral properties of programs), and various spec-
ification languages based on first or higher-order logics (which may be used to
specify the desired behavior of collections of objects).
We will limit ourselves to studying algebraic models capturing the properties
Abstraction and types 5

of abstract data types and objects (section 1.2.4), type calculi based on typed
extensions of the lambda calculus capturing the various flavors of polymorphism
and subtyping (sections ??–??), and an operational semantic model characterizing
the behavior of objects sending messages (section ??).
Both the algebraic and type theoretical models are primarily intended to
clarify the means we have to express the desired behavior of objects and the
restrictions that must be adhered to when defining objects and their relations.
The operational characterization of object behavior, on the other hand, is intended
to give a more precise characterization of the notion of state and state changes
underlying the verification of object behavior by means of assertion logics.
Despite the numerous models introduced there are still numerous approaches
not covered here. One approach worth mentioning is the work based on the
pi-calculus. The pi-calculus is an extension of algebraic process calculi that allow
for communication via named channels. Moreover, the pi-calculus allows for a
notion of migration and the creation and renaming of channels. A semantics of
object-based languages based on the pi-calculus is given in [Walker90]. However,
this semantics does not cover inheritance or subtyping. A higher-order object-
oriented programming language based on the pi-calculus is presented in [PRT93].
Another approach of interest, also based on process calculi, is the object
calculus (OC) described in [Nier93]. OC allows for modeling the operational
semantics of concurrent objects. It merges the notions of agents, as used in
process calculi, with the notion of functions, as present in the lambda calculus.
For alternative models the reader may look in the comp.theory newsgroup to
which information concerning formal calculi for OOP is posted by Tom Mens of
the Free University, Brussels.

1.1.3 Objectives of typed OOP

Before losing ourselves in the details of mathematical models of types, we must
reflect on what we may expect from a type system and what not (at least not
currently).
From a theoretical perspective our ideal is, in the words of [DT88], to arrive at
a simple type theory that provides a consistent and flexible framework for system
descriptions (in order to provide the programmer with sufficient descriptive power
and to aid the construction of useful and understandable software, while allowing
the efficient utilization of the underlying hardware).
The question now is, what support does a typing system provide in this respect.
In slide 1-4, a list is given of aspects in which a typing system may be of help.
One important benefit of regarding ADTs as real types is that realizations of
ADTs become so-called first class citizens, which means that they may be treated
as any other value in the language, for instance being passed as a parameter. In
contrast, syntactic solutions (such as the module of Modula-2 and the package of
Ada) do not allow this.
Pragmatically, the objective of a type system is (and has been) the prevention
of errors. However, if the type system lacks expressivity, adequate control for
errors may result in becoming over-restrictive.
6 Abstract data types

Objectives of typed OOP – system description 1-4

• packaging in a coherent manner

• flexible style of associating operations with objects
• inheritance of description components – reuse, understanding
• separation of specification and implementation
• explicit typing to guide binding decisions

Slide 1-4: Object orientation and types

In general, the more expressive the type system the better the support that
the compiler may offer. In this respect, associating constructors with types may
help in relieving the programmer from dealing with simple but necessary tasks
such as the initialization of complex structures. Objects, in contrast to modules or
packages, allow for the automatic (compiler supported) initializations of instances
of (abstract) data types, providing the programmer with relief from an error-prone
routine.
Another area in which a type system may make the life of a programmer easier
concerns the association of operations with objects. A polymorphic type system
is needed to understand the automatic dispatching for virtual functions and the
opportunity of overloading functions, which are useful mechanisms to control the
complexity of a program, provided they are well understood.
Reuse and understanding are promoted by allowing inheritance and refinement
of description components. (As remarked earlier, inheritance and refinement may
be regarded as the essential contribution of object-oriented programming to the
practice of software development.) It goes without saying that such reuse needs
a firm semantical basis in order to achieve the goal of reliable and maintainable
software.
Another important issue for which a powerful type system can provide support
is the separation of specification and implementation. Naturally, we expect our
type system to support type-safe separate compilation. But in addition, we may
think of allowing multiple implementations of a single (abstract type) specifica-
tion. Explicit typing may then be of help in choosing the right binding when the
program is actually executed. For instance in a parallel environment, behavior
may be realized in a number of ways that differ in the degree to which they affect
locality of access and how they affect, for example, load balancing. With an eye
to the future, these are problems that may be solved with a good type system
(and accompanying compiler).
One of the desiderata for a type system for OOP, laid down in [DT88], is
the separation of a behavioral hierarchy (specifying the behavior of a type in an
abstract sense) and an implementation hierarchy (specifying the actual realization
of that behavior). Separation is needed to accommodate the need for multiple
realizations and to resolve the tension between subtyping and inheritance (a
Algebraic specification 7

tension we have already noted in sections ?? and ??).

Remark In these chapters we cannot hope to do more than get acquainted

with the material needed to understand the problems involved in developing
a type system for object-oriented programming. For an alternative approach,
see [Palsberg94].

1.2 Algebraic specification

Algebraic specification techniques have been developed as a means to specify the

design of complex software systems in a formal way. The algebraic approach has
been motivated by the notion of information hiding put forward in [Parnas72a]
and the ideas concerning abstraction expressed in [Ho72]. Historically, the ADJ-
group (see Goguen et al., 1978) provided a significant impetus to the algebraic
approach by showing that abstract data types may be interpreted as (many sorted)
algebras. (In the context of algebraic specifications the notion of sorts has the
same meaning as types. We will, however, generally speak of types.)
As an example of an algebraic specification, look at the module defining the
data type Bool, as given in slide 1-5.

Algebraic specification – ADT Bool 1-5

adt bool is
functions
true : bool
false : bool
and, or : bool * bool -¿ bool
not : bool -¿ bool
axioms
[B1] and(true,x) = x
[B2] and(false,x) = false
[B3] not(true) = false
[B4] not(false) = true
[B5] or(x,y) = not(and(not(x),not(y)))
end

Slide 1-5: The ADT Bool

In this specification two constants are introduced (the zero-ary functions true
and false), three functions (respectively and, or and not). The or function is
defined by employing not and and, according to a well-known logical law. These
functions may all be considered to be (strictly) related to the type bool. Equations
are used to specify the desired characteristics of elements of type bool. Obviously,
8 Abstract data types

this specification may mathematically be interpreted as (simply) a boolean alge-

bra.

Mathematical models The mathematical framework of algebras allows for a

direct characterization of the behavioral aspects of abstract data types by means
of equations, provided the specification is consistent. Operationally, this allows
for the execution of such specifications by means of term rewriting, provided that
some (technical) constraints are met. The model-theoretic semantics of algebraic
specifications centers around the notion of initial algebras, which gives us the
preferred model of a specification.
To characterize the behavior of objects (that may modify their state) in an
algebraic way, we need to extend the basic framework of initial algebra models
either by allowing so-called multiple world semantics or by making a distinction
between hidden and observable sorts (resulting in the notion of an object as an
abstract machine). As a remark, in our treatment we obviously cannot avoid the
use of some logico-mathematical formalism. If needed, the concepts introduced
will be explained on the fly. Where this does not suffice, the interested reader is
referred to any standard textbook on mathematical logic for further details.

1.2.1 Signatures – generators and observers

Abstract data types may be considered as modules specifying the values and
functions belonging to the type. In [Dahl92], a type T is characterized as a
tuple specifying the set of elements constituting the type T and the collection
of functions related to the type T. Since constants may be regarded as zero-ary
functions (having no arguments), we will speak of a signature Σ or ΣT defining
a particular type T. Also, in accord with common parlance, we will speak of the
sorts s ∈ Σ, which are the sorts (or types) occurring in the declaration of the
functions in Σ. See slide 1-6.

Signature – names and profiles Σ 1-6

• f : s1 × . . . × sn →s

Functions – for T
• constants – c : →T C

• producers – g : s1 × . . . × sn →T P

• observers – f : T →si O

Type – generators
• ΣT = PT ∪ OT , CT ⊂ PT , PT ∩ OT = ∅

Slide 1-6: Algebraic specification

Algebraic specification 9

A signature specifies the names and (function) profiles of the constants and
functions of a data type. In general, the profile of a function is specified as
• f : s1 × . . . × sn →s
where si (i = 1..n) are the sorts defining the domain (that is the types of the
arguments) of the function f, and s is the sort defining the codomain (or result
type) of f. In the case n = 0 the function f may be regarded as a constant. More
generally, when s1 , . . . , sn are all unrelated to the type T being defined, we may
regard f as a relative constant. Relative constants are values that are assumed to
be defined in the context where the specification is being employed.
The functions related to a data type T may be discriminated according to
their role in defining T. We distinguish between producers g ∈ PT , that have
the type T under definition as their result type, and observers f ∈ OT , that
have T as their argument type and deliver a result of a type different from T. In
other words, producer functions define how elements of T may be constructed. (In
the literature one often speaks of constructors, but we avoid this term because
it already has a precisely defined meaning in the object-oriented programming
language C++.) In contrast, observer functions do not produce values of T, but
give instead information on some particular aspect of T.
The signature ΣT of a type T is uniquely defined by the union of producer
functions PT and observer functions OT . Constants of type T are regarded as
a subset of the producer functions PT defining T. Further, we require that the
collection of producers is disjoint from the collection of observers for T, that is
PT ∩ OT = ∅.

Generators The producer functions actually defining the values of a data type
T are called the generator basis of T, or generators of T. The generators of T may
be used to enumerate the elements of T, resulting in the collection of T values
that is called the generator universe in [Dahl92]. See slide 1-7.

Generators – values of T T 1-7

• generator basis – GT = {g ∈ PT }
• generator universe – GUT = {v1 , v2 , . . .}

Examples
• GBool = {t, f }, GUBool = {t, f }
• GNat = {0, S }, GUNat = {0, S 0, SS 0, . . .}
• GSetA = {∅, add}, GUSetA = {∅, add(∅, a), . . .}

Slide 1-7: Generators – basis and universe

The generator universe of a type T consists of the closed (that is variable-free)

terms that may be constructed using either constants or producer functions of T.
As an example, consider the data type Bool with generators t and f. Obviously,
10 Abstract data types

the value domain of Bool, the generator universe GUBool consists only of the
values t and f.
As another example, consider the data type Nat (representing the natural
numbers) with generator basis GNat = {0, S }, consisting of the constant 0 and
the successor function S : Nat→Nat (that delivers the successor of its argument).
The terms that may be constructed by GNat is the set GUNat = {0, S 0, SS 0, . . .},
which uniquely corresponds to the natural numbers {0, 1, 2, . . .}. (More precisely,
the natural numbers are isomorphic with GUNat .)
In contrast, given a type A with element a, b, ..., the generators of SetA result
in a universe that contains terms such as add (∅, a) and add (add (∅, a), a) which
we would like to identify, based on our conception of a set as containing only
one exemplar of a particular value. To effect this we need additional equations
imposing constraints expressing what we consider as the desired shape (or normal
form) of the values contained in the universe of T. However, before we look at
how to extend a signature Σ defining T with equations defining the (behavioral)
properties of T we will look at another example illustrating how the choice of a
generator basis may affect the structure of the value domain of a data type.
In the example presented in slide 1-8, the profiles are given of the functions
that may occur in the signature specifying sequences. (The notation is used to
indicate parameter positions.)

Sequences 1-8
Seq

• ε : seqT empty
• B : seqT × T →seqT right append
• C : T × seqT →seqT left append
• · : seqT × seqT →seqT concatenation
• h i : T →seqT lifting
• h , . . . , i : T n →seqT multiple arguments

Generator basis – preferably one-to-one

• GseqT = {ε, B}, GUseqT = {ε, ε B a, ε B b, . . . , ε B a B b, . . .}
0
• GseqT 0
= {ε, C}, GUseqT = {ε, a C ε, b C ε, . . . , b C a C ε, . . .}
00
• GseqT 00
= {ε, ·, h i}, GUseqT = {ε, hai, hbi, , . . . , ε · ε, . . . , ε · hai, . . .}

Infinite generator basis

000
• GseqT 000
= {ε, h i, h , i, . . .}, GUseqT = {ε, hai, hbi, , . . . , ha, ai, . . .}

Slide 1-8: The ADT Seq

Dependent on which producer functions are selected to generate the universe of

T, the correspondence between the generated universe and the intended domain
is either one-to-one (as for G and G 0 ) or many-to-one (as for G 00 ). Since we
Algebraic specification 11

require our specification to be first-order and finite, infinite generator bases (such
as G 000 ) must be disallowed, even if they result in a one-to-one correspondence.
See [Dahl92] for further details.

1.2.2 Equations – specifying constraints

The specification of the signature of a type (which lists the syntactic constraints to
which a specification must comply) is in general not sufficient to characterize the
properties of the values of the type. In addition, we need to impose semantic
constraints (in the form of equations) to define the meaning of the observer
functions and (very importantly) to identify the elements of the type domain
that are considered equivalent (based on the intuitions one has of that particular
type).

The equivalence relation – congruence 1-9

• x =x reflexivity
• x =y⇒y=x symmetry
• x =y ∧y =z ⇒x =z transitivity
• x = y ⇒ f (. . . , x , . . .) = f (. . . , y, . . .)

Equivalence classes – representatives

• abstract elements – GUT / ∼

Slide 1-9: Equivalence

Mathematically, the equality predicate may be characterized by the properties

listed above, including reflexivity (stating that an element is equal to itself),
symmetry (stating that the orientation of the formula is not important) and
transitivity (stating that if one element is equal to another and that element is
equal to yet another, then the first element is also equal to the latter). In addition,
we have the property that, given that two elements are equal, the results of the
function applied to them (separately) are also equal. (Technically, the latter
property makes a congruence of the equality relation, lifting equality between
elements to the function level.) See slide 1-9.
Given a suitable set of equations, in addition to a signature, we may identify
the elements that can be proved identical by applying the equality relation. In
other words, given an equational theory (of which the properties stated above
must be a part), we can divide the generator universe of a type T into one or
more subsets, each consisting of elements that are equal according to our theory.
The subsets of GU / ∼, that is GU factored with respect to equivalence, may be
regarded as the abstract elements constituting the type T, and from each subset
we may choose a concrete element acting as a representative for the subset which
is the equivalence class of the element.
12 Abstract data types

Operationally, equations may be regarded as rewrite rules (oriented from left to

right), that allow us to transform a term in which a term t1 occurs as a subterm
into a term in which t1 is replaced by t2 if t1 = t2 . For this procedure to be
terminating, some technical restrictions must be met, amounting (intuitively) to
the requirement that the right-hand side must in some sense be simpler than the
left-hand side.
Also, when defining an observer function, we must specify for each possible
generator case an appropriate rewriting rule. That is, each observer must be able
to give a result for each generator. The example of the natural numbers, given
below, will make this clear. Identifying spurious elements by rewriting a term
into a canonical form is somewhat more complex, as we will see for the example
of sets.

Equational theories To illustrate the notions introduced above, we will look at

specifications of some familiar types, namely the natural numbers and sets.
In slide 1-10, an algebraic specification is given of the natural numbers (as
first axiomatized by Peano).

Natural numbers Nat 1-10

functions
0 : Nat
S : Nat -¿ Nat
mul : Nat * Nat -¿ Nat
plus : Nat * Nat -¿ Nat
axioms
[1] plus(x,0) = x
[2] plus(x,Sy) = S(plus(x,y))
[3] mul(x,0) = 0
[4] mul(x,Sy) = plus(mul(x,y),x)
end

Slide 1-10: The ADT Nat

In addition to the constant 0 and successor function S we also introduce a

function mul for multiplication and a function plus for addition. (The notation Sy
stands for application by juxtaposition; its meaning is simply S (y).) The reader
who does not immediately accept the specification in slide 1-10 as an adequate
axiomatization of the natural numbers must try to unravel the computation
depicted in slide 1-11.
Admittedly, not an easy way to compute with natural numbers, but fortu-
nately term rewriting may, to a large extent, be automated (and actual calcula-
tions may be mimicked by semantics preserving primitives).
Using the equational theory expressing the properties of natural numbers, we
may eliminate the occurrences of the functions mul and plus to arrive (through
Algebraic specification 13

1-11
mul(plus(S 0,S 0),S 0) -[2]-¿
mul(S(plus(S 0,0)), S 0) -[1]-¿
mul(SS 0,S 0) -[4]-¿
plus(mul(SS0,0),SS0) -[3]-¿
plus(0,SS0) -[2*]-¿ SS0

Slide 1-11: Symbolic evaluation

symbolic evaluation) at something of the form S n 0 (where n corresponds to the

magnitude of the natural number denoted by the term).
The opportunity of symbolic evaluation by term rewriting is exactly what has
made the algebraic approach so popular for the specification of software, since it
allows (under some restrictions) for executable specifications.
Since they do not reappear in what may be considered the normal forms
of terms denoting the naturals (that are obtained by applying the evaluations
induced by the equality theory), the functions plus and mul may be regarded as
secondary producers. They are not part of the generator basis of the type Nat.
Since we may consider mul and plus as secondary producers at best, we can
easily see that when we define mul and plus for the case 0 and Sx for arbitrary x,
that we have covered all possible (generator) cases. Technically, this allows us to
prove properties of these functions by using structural induction on the possible
generator cases. The proof obligation (in the case of the naturals) then is to
prove that the property holds for the function applied to 0 and assuming that the
property holds for applying the function to x, it also holds for Sx.
As our next example, consider the algebraic specification of the type SetA in
slide 1-12.

Sets Set 1-12

• GSetA = {∅, add}

• GUSetA = {0, add(0, a), . . . , add(add(0, a), a), . . .}

Axioms
[S1] add (add (s, x ), y) = add (add (s, y), x ) commutativ-
ity
[S2] add (add (s, x ), x ) = add (s, x ) idempotence

Slide 1-12: The ADT Set

In the case of sets we have the problem that we do not start with a one-to-one
generator base as we had with the natural numbers. Instead, we have a many-
14 Abstract data types

to-one generator base, so we need equality axioms to eliminate spurious elements

from the (generator) universe of sets.

Equivalence classes GUSetA / ∼ 1-13

• {∅}
• {add(0, a), add(add(0, a), a), . . .}
• ...
• {add(add(0, a), b), add(add(0, b), a), . . .}

Slide 1-13: Equivalence classes for Set

The equivalence classes of GUSetA / ∼ (which is GUSetA factored by the equiv-

alence relation), each have multiple elements (except the class representing the
empty set). To select an appropriate representative from each of these classes
(representing the abstract elements of the type SetA ) we need an ordering on
terms, so that we can take the smaller term as its canonical representation. See
slide 1-13.

1.2.3 Initial algebra semantics

In the previous section we have given a rather operational characterization of

the equivalence relation induced by the equational theory and the process of term
rewriting that enables us to purge the generator universe of a type, by eliminating
redundant elements. However, what we actually strive for is a mathematical model
that captures the meaning of an algebraic specification. Such a model is provided
(or rather a class of such models) by the mathematical structures known as (not
surprisingly) algebras.
A single sorted algebra A is a structure (A, Σ) where A is a set of values, and
Σ specifies the signature of the functions operating on A. A multi-sorted algebra
is a structure A = ({As }s ∈ S , Σ) where S is a set of sort names and As the set
of values belonging to the sort s. The set S may be ordered (in which case the
ordering indicates the subtyping relationships between the sorts). We call the
(multi-sorted) structure A a Σ-algebra.

Mathematical model – algebra 1-14

• Σ-algebra – A = ({As }s ∈ S , Σ)
• interpretation – eval : TΣ →A
• adequacy – A |= t1 = t2 ⇐⇒ E ` t1 = t2

Slide 1-14: Interpretations and models

Algebraic specification 15

Having a notion of algebras, we need to have a way in which to relate an

algebraic specification to such a structure. To this end we define an interpretation
eval : TΣ →A which maps closed terms formed by following the rules given in the
specification to elements of the structure A. We may extend the interpretation
eval to include variables as well (which we write as eval : TΣ (X )→A), but then we
also need to assume that an assignment θ : X →TΣ (X ) is given, such that when
applying θ to a term t the result is free of variables, otherwise no interpretation
in A exists. See slide 1-14.

Interpretations As an example, consider the interpretations of the specification

of Bool and the specification of Nat, given in slide 1-15.

Booleans 1-15

• B = ({tt, ff }, {¬, ∧, ∨})

• evalB : TBool →B = {or 7→ ∨, and 7→ ∧, not 7→ ¬}

Natural numbers
• N = (N, {++, +, ?})
• evalN : TNat →N = {S 7→ ++, mul 7→ ?, plus 7→ +}

Slide 1-15: Interpretations of Bool and Nat

The structure B given above is simply a boolean algebra, with the operators
¬, ∧ and ∨. The functions not, and and or naturally map to their semantic
counterparts. In addition, we assume that the constants true and false map to
the elements tt and ff.
As another example, look at the structure N and the interpretation evalN ,
which maps the functions S, mul and plus specified in Nat in a natural way.
However, since we have also given equations for Nat (specifying how to eliminate
the functions mul and plus) we must take precautions such that the requirement

N |= evalN (t1 ) =N evalN (t2 ) ⇐⇒ ENat ` t1 = t2

is satisfied if the structure N is to count as an adequate model of Nat. The

requirement above states that whenever equality holds for two interpreted terms
(in N ) then these terms must also be provably equal (by using the equations given
in the specification of Nat), and vice versa.
As we will see illustrated later, many models may exist for a single specifica-
tion, all satisfying the requirement of adequacy. The question is, do we have a
means to select one of these models as (in a certain sense) the best model. The
answer is yes. These are the models called initial models.

Initial models A model (in a mathematical sense) represents the meaning of a

specification in a precise way. A model may be regarded as stating a commitment
16 Abstract data types

with respect to the interpretation of the specification. An initial model is intu-

itively the least committing model, least committing in the sense that it imposes
only identifications made necessary by the equational theory of a specification.
Technically, an initial model is a model from which every other model can be
derived by an algebraic mapping which is a homomorphism.

Initial algebra 1-16

• ΣE -algebra – M = (TΣ / ∼, Σ/ ∼)

Properties
• no junk – ∀ a : TΣ / ∼ ∃ t • evalM (t) = a
• no confusion – M |= t1 = t2 ⇐⇒ E ` t1 = t2

Slide 1-16: Initial models

The starting point for the construction of an initial model for a given specifica-
tion with signature Σ is to construct a term algebra TΣ with the terms that may
be generated from the signature Σ as elements. The next step is then to factor the
universe of generated terms into equivalence classes, such that two terms belong
to the same class if they can be proven equivalent with respect to the equational
theory of the specification. We will denote the representative of the equivalence
class to which a term t belongs by [t]. Hence t1 = t2 (in the model) iff [t1 ] = [t2 ].
So assume that we have constructed a structure M = (TΣ / ∼, Σ) then;
finally, we must define an interpretation, say evalM : TΣ →M, that assigns closed
terms to appropriate terms in the term model (namely the representatives of the
equivalence class of that term). Hence, the interpretation of a function f in the
structure M is such that
fM ([t1 ], . . . , [tn ]) = [f (t1 , . . . , tn )]

where fM is the interpretation of f in M. In other words, the result of applying f

to terms t1 , . . . , tn belongs to the same equivalence class as the result of applying
fM to the representatives of the equivalence classes of t1, . . . , tn . See slide 1-16.
An initial algebra model has two important properties, known respectively as
the no junk and no confusion properties. The no junk property states that for
each element of the model there is some term for which the interpretation in M is
equal to that element. (For the TΣ / ∼ model this is simply a representative of the
equivalence class corresponding with the element.) The no confusion property
states that if equality of two terms can be proven in the equational theory of
the specification, then the equality also holds (semantically) in the model, and
vice versa. The no confusion property means, in other words, that sufficiently
many identifications are made (namely those that may be proven to hold), but
no more than that (that is, no other than those for which a proof exists). The
latter property is why we may speak of an initial model as the least committing
model; it simply gives no more meaning than is strictly needed.
Algebraic specification 17

The initial model constructed from the term algebra of a signature Σ is

intuitively a very natural model since it corresponds directly with (a subset of)
the generator universe of Σ. Given such a model, other models may be derived
from it simply by specifying an appropriate interpretation. For example, when
we construct a model for the natural numbers (as specified by Nat) consisting of
the generator universe {0, S 0, SS 0, . . .} and the operators {++, +, ?} (which are
defined as S n + + = S n+1 , S n ∗ S m = S n∗m and S n + S m = S n+m ) we may
simply derive from this model the structure ({0, 1, 2, . . .}, {++, +, ?}) for which
the operations have their standard arithmetical meaning. Actually, this structure
is also an initial model for Nat, since we may also make the inverse transformation.
More generally, when defining an initial model only the structural aspects
(characterizing the behavior of the operators) are important, not the actual con-
tents. Technically, this means that initial models are defined up to isomorphism,
that is a mapping to equivalent models with perhaps different contents but an
identical structure. Not in all cases is a structure derived from an initial model
itself also an initial model, as shown in the example below.

Example Consider the specification of Bool as given before. For this specification
we have given the structure B and the interpretation evalB which defines an initial
model for Bool. (Check this!)

Structure – B = ({tt, ff }, {¬, ∧, ∨}) B 1-17

• evalB : TΣBool →B = {or 7→ ∨, not 7→ ¬}

• evalB : TΣNat →B = {S 7→ ¬, mul 7→ ∧, plus 7→ xor }

Slide 1-17: Structure and interpretation

We may, however, also use the structure B to define an interpretation of Nat.

See slide 1-17. The interpretation evalB : TNat →B is such that evalB (0) =
ff , evalB (Sx ) = ¬evalB (x ), evalB (mul (x , y)) = evalB (x ) ∧ evalB (y) and
evalB (plus(x , y)) = xor (evalB (x ), evalB (y)), where xor (p, q) = (p ∨ q) ∧ (¬(p ∧ q)).
The reader may wish to ponder on what this interpretation effects. The answer
is that it interprets Nat as specifying the naturals modulo 2, which discriminates
only between odd and even numbers. Clearly, this interpretation defines not an
initial model, since it identifies all odd numbers with ff and all even numbers with
tt. Even if we replace ff by 0 and tt by 1, this is not what we generally would
like to commit ourselves to when we speak about the natural numbers, simply
because it assigns too much meaning.

1.2.4 Objects as algebras

The types for which we have thus far seen algebraic specifications (including Bool,
Seq, Set and Nat) are all types of a mathematical kind, which (by virtue of being
mathematical) define operations without side-effects. Dynamic state changes, that
18 Abstract data types

is side-effects, are often mentioned as determining the characteristics of objects in

general. In the following we will explore how we may deal with assigning meaning
to dynamic state changes in an algebraic framework.
Let us look first at the abstract data type stack. The type stack may be
considered as one of the ‘real life’ types in the world of programming. See slide
1-18.

Abstract Data Type – applicative Stack 1-18

functions
new : stack;
push : element * stack -¿ stack;
empty : stack -¿ boolean;
pop : stack -¿ stack;
top : stack -¿ element;
axioms
empty( new ) = true
empty( push(x,s) ) = false
top( push(x,s) ) = x
pop( push(x,s) ) = s
preconditions
pre: pop( s : stack ) = not empty(s)
pre: top( s : stack ) = not empty(s)
end

Slide 1-18: The ADT Stack

Above, a stack has been specified by giving a signature (consisting of the

functions new, push, empty, pop and top). In addition to the axioms characterizing
the behavior of the stack, we have included two pre-conditions to test whether
the stack is empty in case pop or top is applied. The pre-conditions result in
conditional axioms for the operations pop and top. Conditional axioms, however,
do preserve the initial algebra semantics.
The specification given above is a maximally abstract description of the be-
havior of a stack. Adding more implementation detail would disrupt its nice
applicative structure, without necessarily resulting in different behavior (from a
sufficiently abstract perspective).
The behavior of elements of abstract data types and objects is characterized
by state changes. State changes may affect the value delivered by observers
or methods. Many state changes (such as the growing or shrinking of a set,
sequence or stack) really are nothing but applicative transformations that may
mathematically be described by the input-output behavior of an appropriate
function.
An example in which the value of an object on some attribute is dependent
on the history of the operations applied to the object, instead of the structure of
Algebraic specification 19

the object itself (as in the case of a stack) is the object account, as specified in
slide 1-19. The example is taken from [Goguen].

Dynamic state changes – objects account 1-19

object account is
functions
bal : account -¿ money
methods
credit : account * money -¿ account
debit : account * money -¿ account
error
overdraw : money -¿ money
axioms
bal(new(A)) = 0
bal(credit(A,M)) = bal(A) + M
bal(debit(A,M)) = bal(A) - M if bal(A) ¿= M
error-axioms
bal(debit(A,M)) = overdraw(M) if bal(A) ¡ M
end

Slide 1-19: The algebraic specification of an account

An account object has one attribute function (called bal) that delivers the
amount of money that is (still) in the account. In addition, there are two method
functions, credit and debit that may respectively be used to add or withdraw
money from the account. Finally, there is one special error function, overdraw,
that is used to define the result of balance when there is not enough money left to
grant a debit request. Error axioms are needed whenever the proper axioms are
stated conditionally, that is contain an if expression. The conditional parts of the
axioms, including the error axioms, must cover all possible cases.
Now, first look at the form of the axioms. The axioms are specified as
fn(method (Object, Args)) = expr

where fn specifies an attribute function (bal in the case of account) and method
a method (either new, which is used to create new accounts, credit or debit). By
convention, we assume that method (Object, . . .) = Object, that is that a method
function returns its first argument. Applying a method thus results in redefining
the value of the function fn. For example, invoking the method credit(acc, 10)
for the account acc results in modifying the function bal to deliver the value
bal (acc) + 10 instead of simply bal (acc). In the example above, the axioms define
the meaning of the function bal with respect to the possible method applications.
It is not difficult to see that these operations are of a non-applicative nature, non-
applicative in the sense that each time a method is invoked the actual definition
20 Abstract data types

of bal is changed. The change is necessary because, in contrast to, for example,
the functions employed in a boolean algebra, the actual value of the account may
change in time in a completely arbitrary way. A first order framework of (multi
sorted) algebras is not sufficiently strong to define the meaning of such changes.
What we need may be characterized as a multiple world semantics, where each
world corresponds to a possible state of the account. As an alternative semantics
we will also discuss the interpretation of an object as an abstract machine, which
resembles an (initial) algebra with hidden sorts.

Multiple world semantics From a semantic perspective, an object that changes

its state may be regarded as moving from one world to another, when we see a
world as representing a particular state of affairs. Take for example an arbitrary
(say John’s) account, which has a balance of 500. We may express this as
balance(accountJohn) = 500. Now, when we invoke the method credit, as in
credit(accountJohn, 200), then we expect the balance of the account to be raised
to 700. In the language of the specification, this is expressed as
bal (credit(accountJohn, 200)) = bal (accountJohn) + 200

Semantically, the result is a state of affairs in which bal (accountJohn) = 700.

In [Goguen] an operational interpretation is given of a multiple world seman-
tics by introducing a database D (that stores the values of the attribute functions
of objects as first order terms) which is transformed as the result of invoking a
method, into a new database D 0 (that has an updated value for the attribute
function modified by the method). The meaning of each database (or world) may
be characterized by an algebra and an interpretation as before.
The rules according to which transformations on a database take place may
be formulated as in slide 1-20.

Multiple world semantics – inference rules 1-20

• hf (t1 , . . . , tn ), Di→hv , Di attribute

• hm(t1 , . . . , tn ), Di→ht1 , D 0i method
• ht, Di→ht 0 , D 0 i ⇒ he(. . . , t, . . .), Di→he(. . . , t 0 , . . .), D 0 i

Slide 1-20: The interpretation of change

The first rule (attribute) describes how attribute functions are evaluated.
Whenever a function f with arguments t1 , . . . , tn evaluates to a value (or expres-
sion) v, then the term f (t1 , . . . , tn ) may be replaced by v without affecting the
database D. (We have simplified the treatment by omitting all aspects having to do
with matching and substitutions, since such details are not needed to understand
the process of symbolic evaluation in a multiple world context.) The next rule
(method) describes the result of evaluating a method. We assume that invoking
the method changes the database D into D 0 . Recall that, by convention, a method
Algebraic specification 21

returns its first argument. Finally, the last rule (composition) describes how we
may glue all this together.
No doubt, the reader needs an example to get a picture of how this machinery
actually works.

Example - a counter object 1-21

object ctr is ctr

function n : ctr -¿ nat
method incr : ctr -¿ ctr
axioms
n(new(C)) = 0
n(incr(C)) = n(C) + 1
end

Slide 1-21: The object ctr

In slide 1-21, we have specified a simple object ctr with an attribute function
value (delivering the value of the counter) and a method function incr (that may
be used to increment the value of the counter).

Abstract evaluation 1-22

¡n(incr(incr(new(C)))),{ C }¿ -[new]-¿
¡n(incr(incr(C))),{ C[n:=0] }¿ -[incr]-¿
¡n(incr(C)),{ C[n:=1] }¿ -[incr]-¿
¡n(C), { C[n:=2] }¿ -[n]-¿
¡2, { C[n:=2] }¿

Slide 1-22: An example of abstract evaluation

The end result of the evaluation depicted in slide 1-22 is the value 2 and a
context (or database) in which the value of the counter C is (also) 2. The database
is modified in each step in which the method incr is applied. When the attribute
function value is evaluated the database remains unchanged, since it is merely
consulted.

Objects as abstract machines Multiple world semantics provide a very pow-

erful framework in which to define the meaning of object specifications. Yet, as
illustrated above, the reasoning involved has a very operational flavor and lacks
the appealing simplicity of the initial algebra semantics given for abstract data
types. As an alternative, [Goguen] propose an interpretation of objects (with
dynamic state changes) as abstract machines.
22 Abstract data types

Recall that an initial algebra semantics defines a model in which the elements
are equivalence classes representing the abstract values of the data type. In effect,
initial models are defined only up to isomorphism (that is, structural equivalence
with similar models). In essence, the framework of initial algebra semantics allows
us to abstract from the particular representation of a data type, when assigning
meaning to a specification. From this perspective it does not matter, for example,
whether integers are represented in binary or decimal notation.
The notion of abstract machines generalizes the notion of initial algebras in
that it loosens the requirement of (structural) isomorphism, to allow for what
we may call behavioral equivalence. The idea underlying the notion of behavioral
equivalence is to make a distinction between visible sorts and hidden sorts and
to look only at the visible sorts to determine whether two algebras A and B
are behaviorally equivalent. According to [Goguen], two algebras A and B are
behaviorally equivalent if and only if the result of evaluating any expression of a
visible sort in A is the same as the result of evaluating that expression in B.
Now, an abstract machine (in the sense of Goguen and Meseguer, 1986) is
simply the equivalence class of behaviorally equivalent algebras, or in other words
the maximally abstract characterization of the visible behavior of an abstract data
type with (hidden) states.
The notion of abstract machines is of particular relevance as a formal frame-
work to characterize the (implementation) refinement relation between objects.
For example, it is easy to determine that the behavior of a stack implemented
as a list is equivalent to the behavior of a stack implemented by a pointer array,
whereas these objects are clearly not equivalent from a structural point of view.
Moreover, the behavior of both conform (in an abstract sense) with the behavior
specified in an algebraic way. Together, the notions of abstract machine and
behavioral equivalence provide a formalization of the notion of information hiding
in an algebraic setting. In the chapters that follow we will look at alternative for-
malisms to explain information hiding, polymorphism and behavioral refinement.

1.3 Decomposition – modules versus objects

Abstract data types allow the programmer to define a complex data structure and
an associated collection of functions, operating on that structure, in a consistent
way. Historically, the idea of data abstraction was originally not type-oriented but
arose from a more pragmatic concern with information hiding and representation
abstraction, see [Parnas72b]. The first realization of the idea of data abstraction
was in the form of modules grouping a collection of functions and allowing the
actual representation of the data structures underlying the values of the (abstract)
type domain to be hidden, see also [Parnas72a].
In [Cook90], a comparison is made between the way in which abstract data
types are realized traditionally (as modules) and the way abstract data types may
be realized using object-oriented programming techniques. According to [Cook90],
these approaches must be regarded as being orthogonal to one another and, being
to some extent complementary, deserve to be integrated in a common framework.