{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,22]],"date-time":"2026-04-22T20:55:25Z","timestamp":1776891325604,"version":"3.51.2"},"reference-count":0,"publisher":"Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe (CCSD)","issue":"5","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2003,8,27]],"date-time":"2003-08-27T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1061942400000},"content-version":"unspecified","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/terms"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["J. Funct. Prog."],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2003,9]]},"abstract":"<jats:p>We show that a non-duplicating transformation into Continuation-Passing Style (CPS) has no effect on control-flow analysis, a positive effect on binding-time analysis for traditional partial evaluation, and no effect on binding-time analysis for continuation-based partial evaluation: a monovariant control-flow analysis yields equivalent results on a direct-style program and on its CPS counterpart, a monovariant binding-time analysis yields less precise results on a direct-style program than on its CPS counterpart, and an enhanced monovariant binding-time analysis yields equivalent results on a direct-style program and on its CPS counterpart. Our proof technique amounts to constructing the CPS counterpart of flow information and of binding times. Our results formalize and confirm a folklore theorem about traditional binding-time analysis, namely that CPS has a positive effect on binding times. What may be more surprising is that the benefit does not arise from a standard refinement of program analysis, as, for instance, duplicating continuations. The present study is symptomatic of an unsettling property of program analyses: their quality is unpredictably vulnerable to syntactic accidents in source programs, i.e., to the way these programs are written. More reliable program analyses require a better understanding of the effect of syntactic change.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1017\/s0956796802004379","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2003,9,2]],"date-time":"2003-09-02T06:37:08Z","timestamp":1062484628000},"page":"867-904","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":6,"title":["Syntactic accidents in program analysis: on the impact of the CPS transformation"],"prefix":"10.46298","volume":"13","author":[{"given":"DANIEL","family":"DAMIAN","sequence":"first","affiliation":[]},{"given":"OLIVIER","family":"DANVY","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]}],"member":"25203","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2003,8,27]]},"container-title":["Journal of Functional Programming"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/services\/aop-cambridge-core\/content\/view\/S0956796802004379","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,22]],"date-time":"2026-04-22T20:18:50Z","timestamp":1776889130000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/product\/identifier\/S0956796802004379\/type\/journal_article"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2003,8,27]]},"references-count":0,"journal-issue":{"issue":"5","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2003,11]]}},"alternative-id":["S0956796802004379"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/s0956796802004379","relation":{},"ISSN":["0956-7968","1469-7653"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0956-7968","type":"print"},{"value":"1469-7653","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2003,8,27]]}}}