Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published bySheryl Austin Modified over 9 years ago
1
Principal Type Schemes for Modular Programs Derek Dreyer and Matthias Blume Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago ESOP 2007 Braga, Portugal
2
Principal Type Schemes for Functional Programs Damas and Milner’s classic POPL’82 paper about implicit ML-style “let-polymorphism” Declarative semantics: ` e : –Clean, but non-deterministic: e may have many types Algorithm W: ` e ) ( ; ) –Computes the principal, “most general” type of e
3
Principal Type Schemes for Modular Programs? Definition of Standard ML joins Damas-Milner’s declarative rules with the rules of the ML module system Implementations of SML employ various generalizations of Algorithm W to work in the presence of modules Is Damas-Milner being generalized properly? –Does SML have principal types?
4
Contributions of This Work A set of example programs on which no SML typechecker accurately matches the Definition –Illustrate why the Definition is difficult to implement A novel declarative system for ML-style polymorphism in the presence of modules that is easy to implement –Principal types theorem proved –Backward-compatible with SML –Elegant application of previous ideas/techniques
5
Example (a)
6
Value restriction: f ’s type cannot be polymorphically generalized because id id is not a syntactic value.
7
Example (a)
12
Example (a) is Well-Typed According to the Definition
13
What Went Wrong?
14
MacQueen’s Gambit SML/NJ’s policy (according to Dave MacQueen): –Core and module languages should not mix –Reject module-level bindings where r.h.s. is not a value and is not uniquely typed, e.g. val f = id id.
15
MacQueen’s Gambit SML/NJ’s policy (according to Dave MacQueen): –Core and module languages should not mix –Reject module-level bindings where r.h.s. is not a value and is not uniquely typed, e.g. val f = id id. Disadvantages: –Rejects perfectly good, noncontrived examples, too. E.g. val L = ref nil. –May not scale to languages where module and core are intertwined (e.g. 1 st -class modules, modular type classes)
16
Our Solution
17
Need a way of generalizing at the functor binding
18
Our Solution Idea: Generalized Functor Signatures (GFS) –Allow functors to take implicit type arguments in addition to their explicit module arguments
19
Our Solution Idea: Generalized Functor Signatures (GFS) –Allow functors to take implicit type arguments in addition to their explicit module arguments
20
Our Solution Idea: Generalized Functor Signatures (GFS) –Allow functors to take implicit type arguments in addition to their explicit module arguments Implicit functors were also useful for modular type classes
21
Our Solution
23
…
24
…
25
Example (a) Typechecks! …
26
Still Typechecks! …
27
Problem Solved! #1
28
Example (b)
29
Example (b) is Well-Typed According to the Definition
30
Example (b) Using a GFS
32
Example (b) Rejected! Not in scope!
33
Our Solution Idea: –Expand the definition of “in scope” –Allow inferred types to mention abstract types that are not defined until later in the program
34
Example (b) Accepted! No problem!
35
Our Solution Idea: –Expand the definition of “in scope” –Allow inferred types to mention abstract types that are not defined until later in the program How does that work and is it sound?
36
Our Solution Idea: –Expand the definition of “in scope” –Allow inferred types to mention abstract types that are not defined until later in the program How does that work and is it sound? –Using Dreyer’s RTG type system (ICFP 05), which was designed as a foundation for recursive modules –Soundness proved via progress/preservation
37
Isn’t It Complicated?
38
No
39
Isn’t It Complicated? No Typing judgment for terms essentially same as Definition’s:
40
Isn’t It Complicated? No Traditional Definition-style typing judgment (a la Russo):
41
Isn’t It Complicated? No Our new declarative typing judgment:
42
Isn’t It Complicated? No Our new declarative typing judgment: Moreover, type inference becomes much simpler
43
Example (c)
44
Example (c) is Not Well-Typed According to the Definition Not in scope!
45
Distinguishing (b) and (c) Involves tracking dependencies between abstract types and unification variables –Only 1.5 out of 9 SML implementations get it right Russo’s thesis (2000) gives an inference algorithm based on Miller’s technique of unification under a mixed prefix –But does not prove that it works –Algorithm doesn’t accept Example (a)
46
In Our System, Example (c) is Well-Typed No problem!
47
What Else Is In the Paper Full formalization of declarative semantics and inference algorithm –Hybrid of Definition and Harper-Stone semantics –Type soundness proven by reduction to RTG (reduction in tech report) Principal types theorem stated (proof in tech report)
48
“Benchmarks” Reject All: SML/NJ, ML-Kit, TILT, SML.NET, Hamlet Mixed Bag: Poly/ML, Alice, Moscow ML (interactive mode) MLton: Success relies on whole-program compilation, defunctorization coupled with typechecking
49
“Benchmarks” Reject All: SML/NJ, ML-Kit, TILT, SML.NET, Hamlet Mixed Bag: Poly/ML, Alice, Moscow ML (interactive mode) MLton: Success relies on whole-program compilation, defunctorization coupled with typechecking
50
Obrigado!
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.