Abstract:
The identifiers chosen by programmers as function names contain valuable information. They are often the starting point for program understanding activities, especially w...Show MoreMetadata
Abstract:
The identifiers chosen by programmers as function names contain valuable information. They are often the starting point for program understanding activities, especially when high-level views, like the call graph, are available. In this paper, the lexical, syntactic and semantic structure of function identifiers is analyzed by means of a segmentation technique, a regular language and a conceptual classification. The application of these analyses to a database of procedural programs suggests some potential uses of the results, ranging from support for program understanding to the evolution towards standard and more maintainable forms of programs.
Date of Conference: 08-08 October 1999
Date Added to IEEE Xplore: 06 August 2002
Print ISBN:0-7695-0303-9
References is not available for this document.
Select All
1.
N. Anquetil and T. Lethbridge, "Extracting concepts from file names; a new file clustering criterion", Proc. of the International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 84-93, 1998-April.
2.
G. Antoniol, R. Fiutem, G. Lutteri, P. Tonella and S. Zanfei, "Program understanding and maintenance with the CANTO environment", Proc. of the International Conference on Software Maintenance, pp. 72-81, 1997-Oct.
3.
G. Antoniol, A. Potrich, P. Tonella and R. Fiutem, "Evolving object oriented design to improve code traceability", Proc. of the International Workshop on Program Comprehension, 1999-May.
4.
G. Butler, P. Grogono, R. Shinghal and I. Tjandra, "Retrieving information from data flow diagrams", Proc. of the Working Conference on Reverse Engineering, pp. 22-29, 1995-July.
5.
J. C. S. do Prado Leite and P. M. Cerqueira, "Recovering business rules from structured analysis specifications", Proc. of the Working Conference on Reverse Engineering, pp. 13-21, 1995-July.
6.
M. Lindvall and K. Sandahl, "Practical implications of trace-ability", Software: Practice and Experience, vol. 26, no. 10, pp. 1161-1180, October 1996.
7.
P. Lutsky, "Automating testing by reverse engineering of software documentation", Proc. of the Working Conference on Reverse Engineering, pp. 8-12, 1995-July.
8.
S. Matwin and A. Ahmad, "Reuse of modular software with automated comment analysis", Proc. of the International Conference on Software Maintenance, pp. 222-231, 1994-September.
9.
E. Merlo, I. McAdam and R. D. Mori, "Source code informal information analysis using connectionist models", Proc. of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1339-1344, 1993.
10.
S. Nanduri and S. Rugaber, "Requirements validation via automated natural language parsing", Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 9-19, January 1995.
11.
J. Sayyad-Shirabad, T. C. Lethbridge and S. Lyon, "A little knowledge can go a long way towards program understanding", Proc. of the International Workshop on Program Comprehension, pp. 111-117, 1997-May.
12.
M. Siff and T. Reps, "Identifying modules via concept analysis", Proc. of the International Conference on Software Maintenance, pp. 170-178, 1997-Oct.
13.
A. Takang, P. Grubb and R. Macredie, "The effects of comments and identifier names on program comprehensibil-ity: An experimental study", Journal of Programming Languages, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 143-167, 1996.
14.
D. Welsh, Codes and Cryptography, Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1988.
