Program slicing by calculation

Program slicing is a well known family of techniques used to identify code fragments which depend on or are depended upon specific program entities. They are particularly useful in the areas of reverse engineering, program understanding, testing and software maintenance. Most slicing methods, usually oriented towards the imperative or object paradigms, are based on some sort of graph structure representing program dependencies. Slicing techniques amount, therefore, to (sophisticated) graph transversal algorithms. This paper proposes a completely different approach to the slicing problem for functional programs. Instead of extracting program information to build an underlying dependencies’ structure, we resort to standard program calculation strategies, based on the so-called Bird-Meertens formalism. The slicing criterion is specified either as a projection or a hiding function which, once composed with the original program, leads to the identification of the intended slice. Going through a number of examples, the paper suggests this approach may be an interesting, even if not completely general, alternative to slicing functional programs

Higher-order lazy functional slicing

Program slicing is a well known family of techniques intended to identify and isolate code fragments which depend on, or are depended upon, specific program entities. This is particularly useful in the areas of reverse engineering, program understanding, testing and software maintenance. Most slicing methods, and corresponding tools, target either the imperative or the object oriented paradigms, where program slices are computed with respect to a variable or a program statement. Taking a complementary point of view, this paper focuses on the slicing of higher-order functional programs under a lazy evaluation strategy. A prototype of a Haskell slicer, built as proof-of-concept for these ideas, is also introduced

Slicing functional programs by calculation

Program slicing is a well known family of techniques used to identify code fragments which depend on or are depended upon specific program entities. They are particularly useful in the areas of reverse engineering, program understanding, testing and software maintenance. Most slicing methods, usually targeting either the imperative or the object oriented paradigms, are based on some sort of graph structure representing program dependencies. Slicing techniques amount, therefore, to (sophisticated) graph transversal algorithms. This paper proposes a completely different approach to the slicing problem for functional programs. Instead of extracting program information to build an underlying dependencies’ structure, we resort to standard program calculation strategies, based on the so-called Bird- Meertens formalism. The slicing criterion is specified either as a projection or a hiding function which, once composed with the original program, leads to the identification of the intended slice. Going through a number of examples, the paper suggests this approach may be an interesting, even if not completely general alternative to slicing functional programs

Accuracy Comparison of Implant Impression Techniques: A Systematic Review

Background: Several studies link the seamless fit of implant-supported prosthesis with the accuracy of the dental impression technique obtained during acquisition. In addition, factors such as implant angulation and coping shape contribute to implant misfit. Purpose: The aim of this study was to identify the most accurate impression technique and factors affecting the impression accuracy. Material and Methods: A systematic review of peer-reviewed literature was conducted analyzing articles published between 2009 and 2013. The following search terms were used: implant impression, impression accuracy, and implant misfit.A total of 417 articles were identified; 32 were selected for review. Results: All 32 selected studies refer to in vitro studies. Fourteen articles compare open and closed impression technique, 8 advocate the open technique, and 6 report similar results. Other 14 articles evaluate splinted and non-splinted techniques; all advocating the splinted technique. Polyether material usage was reported in nine; six studies tested vinyl polysiloxane and one study used irreversible hydrocolloid. Eight studies evaluated different copings designs. Intraoral optical devices were compared in four studies. Conclusions: The most accurate results were achieved with two configurations: (1) the optical intraoral system with powder and (2) the open technique with splinted squared transfer copings, using polyether as impression material.