Translucent existentials and sums
Download
1 / 48

Translucent Existentials and Sums - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 88 Views
  • Uploaded on

Translucent Existentials and Sums. Robert Harper Fall Semester, 2002. Transparency and Opacity. Dependent types are transparent . Propagate type sharing by substitution. No support for type abstraction. Existential types are opaque . Representation type is hidden from client.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Translucent Existentials and Sums' - adeola


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Translucent existentials and sums

Translucent Existentials and Sums

Robert Harper

Fall Semester, 2002


Transparency and opacity
Transparency and Opacity

  • Dependent types are transparent.

    • Propagate type sharing by substitution.

    • No support for type abstraction.

  • Existential types are opaque.

    • Representation type is hidden from client.

    • No support for transparency.


Transparency and opacity1
Transparency and Opacity

  • Dependent types run afoul of effects.

    • Replication or deletion of effects.

    • Effectful expressions in types.

    • Sensible in a second-class module system.

  • Existential types are compatible with effects.

    • But opacity is a high price to pay!


Transparency and opacity2
Transparency and Opacity

  • Existential types support separate compilation.

    • Interfaces are existentials.

    • Complete separation of code from types.

  • Dependent types conflict with separate compilation.

    • Sharing is propagated by substitution.


Transparency and opacity3
Transparency and Opacity

  • Separate compilation and effects are important.

    • Suggests using existentials.

  • Type dependency is important.

    • Suggests using dependent types.

  • Controlled sharing propagation is essential.

    • Suggests something else is needed.


Effects revisited
Effects, Revisited

  • Existentials are maximally pessimistic.

    • If e : 9 t.t, then no information about the type part of e is available statically.

    • eg, e = if moon-is-full then e1 else e2.

  • But this is a “worst-case” scenario!

    • e = packtwithl x:t.x

    • e = packtwith (print “hello”; l x:t.x)


Determinacy
Determinacy

  • A module is determinate iff its type component is well-defined.

    • First-class: truly indeterminate modules.

    • Second-class: pro forma indeterminacy, but no per se indeterminacy.

  • Module values are determinate.

    • Explicit package of a type with a value.

    • Variables, paths (assuming CBV).


Full expressiveness
Full Expressiveness

  • The type of a module should capture its entire static significance.

    • Identity of type components.

    • Type of value components.

  • Need type definitions in interfaces.

    • Capture representation type.

    • Programmer-controlled degree of abstraction.


Translucent existentials
Translucent Existentials

  • Enrich existentials with type definitions:

    • 9 t.t for opaque types;

    • 9 t=s.t for transparent types.

  • Packages do not change.

    • But any equations must be satisfied!

  • Dot notation:

    • repn(e) for the representation type of e;

    • opns(e) for the operations of e.


Translucent existentials1
Translucent Existentials

  • Propagation of type sharing information:

    • G`9 t=s.t´9 t=s.{s/t}t

  • “Forgetful” subtyping:

    • G`9 t=s.t <: 9 t.t,

    • if G `t´t’, then G `t<:t’

  • Thus, 9 t=s.t <: 9 t.{s/t}t


Dot notation
Dot Notation

  • If e is determinate of type 9 t=s.t, then repn(e) ´s.

  • If e is determinate of type 9 t.t, then repn(e) is equal only to itself.

  • If e is indeterminate, cannot form repn(e).

    • There is no unique representation type!


Dot notation and effects
Dot Notation and Effects

  • Typing rules for opns must take account of effects!

    • First cut: G `D opns(e) : {repn(e)/t}t

    • But this involves substitution!

  • Problem: repn(e) is a type involving e.

    • No better off than with dependent types!

    • What if e is indeterminate?


Dot notation and determinacy
Dot Notation and Determinacy

  • Suppose e : 9 t.t.

  • If e is determinate, then repn(e) is sensible, hence so is opns(e).

  • If tdoes not involve t, then opns(e) is sensible.

    • Substitution is vacuous, so opns(e) : t.

    • e can be determinate or indeterminate.


Dot notation and transparency
Dot Notation and Transparency

  • Note: the type of opns(e) does not depend on repn(e) if e : 9 t=s.t.

    • Propagate sharing to eliminate t from t.

  • Theorem: If e is a value, then it has a non-dependent type!

    • Explicit packages: propagate sharing.

    • Variables (and paths): selfification.


Dot notation and transparency1
Dot Notation and Transparency

  • WLOG we may admit opns(e) only when e has a non-dependent type.

    • Always if e is a value (by the theorem).

    • Always if representation is explicitly exposed (even if e has effects).

    • Never if e is genuinely indeterminate.

  • This is the key to dot notation in the presence of effects!


Dot notation and transparency2
Dot Notation and Transparency

  • Packages have transparent types:

    • packswith e : 9 t=s.t, if e : {s/t}t.

  • Package type can be weakened by subsumption.

    • packswith e : 9 t.t.

  • Sealing forces weakening.

    • (e:9 t.t) : 9 t.t


Selfification
Selfification

  • Suppose that G(x) = 9 t.t.

  • Selfification: G` x : 9 t=repn(x).t.

    • repn(x) is well-formed because variables are determinate.

    • propagates an “obvious” fact to the type.

  • Extends to paths opns(opns(…(x)…)).

    • Deemed valuable because projection is “total” (does not affect determinacy).


Selfification1
Selfification

  • Selfification is essential for principal types for modules.

    • sig type t val x:t end is not principal for x, even though x is declared with this type!

    • selfification yields the most precise type for x, namely sig type t=x.t val x:t end.

    • all types for x are supertypes.

    • singletons reveal the full story (later).


Selfification2
Selfification

  • Without selfification we cannot form opns(x)!

    • Typing rule precludes dependency.

  • Without selficication we incur excessive abstraction.

    • structure S’ = S yields S’.t different from S.t

  • Leads to a more elegant type theory.

    • But incompatible with “by name” binding!


Dependency
Dependency

  • Similar ideas apply to dependent types!

    • Avoid substitution, because of effects.

  • Substructure selection and functor application are restricted to the non-dependent case.

    • First, propagate type sharing.

    • Second, perform elimination operation.


Substructure selection
Substructure Selection

  • Suppose that e : S s:t1.t2.

    • the natural type for p2(e) is {p1(e)/s}t2

    • but what if e has an effect?

  • How can s occur free in t2 ?

    • only as repn(p(s)), where p is a path.

    • if p(s) is transparent, substitute to remove dependency.

    • if e is a value, all paths from s can be made transparent by path selfification.


Substructure selection1
Substructure Selection

  • Can always admit p1(e).

    • no issue of sharing propagation.

  • Admit p2(e) iff e : t1£t2.

    • That is, e : S s:t1.t2 with s not free in t2.

  • Dependency eliminable iff e is determinate.

    • Otherwise it makes no sense to form p2(e)!


Functor application
Functor Application

  • Suppose that e : P s:t1.t2.

  • Consider the application e(e1).

    • Natural type: {e1/s}2.

    • But what if e has an effect?

  • Require that s does not occur free in t2.

    • Can only arise in the form repn(p(s)).

    • Always possible if e1 is a value!


Functor application1
Functor Application

  • Subtyping for functor types is

    • covariant in the range

    • contravariant in the domain

  • We can weaken a functor type by strengthening its domain type!

    • Add more sharing to the domain.

    • Propagate sharing to eliminate dependency.


Functor application2
Functor Application

  • Suppose that t1 = 9 t.s1 and that t2 = 9 t=repn(s).s2.

    • So t = P s:t1.t2 is dependent.

  • Suppose that e : 9 t.s1 is a value.

    • So e : 9 t=r.s for some r.

  • By subsumption F has type P s:t1’.t2, where t1’ = 9 t=r.s1.


Functor application3
Functor Application

  • By sharing propagation we may eliminate dependencies on s from t2.

    • Replace repn(s) by r.

  • Thus F has type P s:t1’.{r/repn(s)}t2.

    • Write t2 as {repn(s)/t}t2’.

    • Then form t2’’ = {r/t}t2’.

  • So F has type t1’!t2’’, hence F(e1) : t2’’.

    • Regardless of whether e1 has an effect!


Functor application4
Functor Application

  • Every value must have a “fully transparent” type.

    • All type paths starting from that value have a definition.

    • Thus repn(p) may be replaced by its definition.













Harper lillibridge
Harper-Lillibridge

  • The H-L formalism is based on translucent sums.

    • Dependent records with type and value components.

    • Labels (for external access) separated from variables (for internal access).

    • Subtyping may forget components.


Harper lillibridge1
Harper-Lillibridge

  • Translucent sums: { d1, …, dn }

    • Each di is a declaration of a type or a value.

  • Declarations:

    • Type component: l Ba :: k [=t]

    • Value component: l B x : t

  • External vs internal access:

    • Labels are used for paths (projection).

    • Variables are used for internal dependencies.

    • It is essential to distinguish these!


Harper lillibridge2
Harper-Lillibridge

  • Elements of translucent sums are dependent records { b1, …, bn }.

    • Each bi is a binding.

  • Bindings have the form:

    • Type binding: l Ba :: k = t.

    • Value binding: l B x : t.


Leroy manifest types
Leroy: Manifest Types

  • Superficial differences from H-L.

    • More ML-like notation, for example.

  • A few minor technical deficiencies.

    • Paths cannot be limited to variables at the head.

    • Different treatment of variable/label distinction.


Translucent sums for modules
Translucent Sums for Modules

  • Translucent sums solve several problems in one framework:

    • Effectful languages.

    • Dependent types for structures and functors.

    • Selective opacity/transparency.


Translucent sums for modules1
Translucent Sums for Modules

  • H-L and Leroy provide only very weak support for higher-order modules.

    • Fully expressive in the first-class case (without restrictions).

    • Does no capture phase distinction for the second-class case.


Translucent sums for modules2
Translucent Sums for Modules

  • The H-L formalism is undecidable!

    • Subtyping relation is undecidable by an argument similar to Pierce’s for F-Sub.

    • Leroy’s may or may not be, it’s not clear.

  • Both formalisms lack principal types!

    • Serious obstacle to type checking.

    • Precludes strong separate compilation (pace Leroy’s motivation).


Translucent sums for modules3
Translucent Sums for Modules

  • Let T = 9 t.1 and let U = 9 t=repn(s).1, where s is a free variable.

    • Note that U <: T.

    • Let t¤ = packtwith¤ : T.

  • Consider the type s = (T ! U) £ U, and suppose that we wish to avoid s.

  • Two incomparable supertypes avoid s:

    • (T! T) £ T

    • S f:(T! T).(9 t=repn(f(t¤)).1) foranyt.


Translucent sums for modules4
Translucent Sums for Modules

  • For a first-order module system we can get by with H-L or L.

    • HOM weakness not at issue.

  • But we must avoid the avoidance problem.

    • Requires elaboration tricks.

    • More on this later.

    • O’Caml doesn’t, so its incomplete.


Summary
Summary

  • Translucent sums enrich existentials:

    • Controlled abstraction.

    • Fully expressive types.

    • Support for “dot notation”.

  • Translucent sums generalize dependent types.

    • Leroy establishes a precise connection.


ad