|
|
|
@ -2282,26 +2282,54 @@ whenever the function $f' : \dom(f) \to \dec{cod}(f)$, obtained by |
|
|
|
restricting $f$ to its domain, is injective, surjective, and bijective |
|
|
|
respectively. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\section{Universal algebra} |
|
|
|
\label{sec:universal-algebra} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Universal algebra studies \emph{algebraic theories}. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{definition}[Operations] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\section{Asymptotic notation} |
|
|
|
\label{sec:asymp-not} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asymptotic notation is a compact notational framework for comparing |
|
|
|
the order of growth of functions, which abstracts away any constants |
|
|
|
involved~\cite{Bachmann94}. We will use the asymptotic notation for |
|
|
|
both runtime and space analyses of functions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{definition}[Upper bound] |
|
|
|
We say that a function $f : \N \to \R$ is of order \emph{at most} |
|
|
|
$g : \N \to \R$, and write $f = \BigO(g)$, if there is a positive |
|
|
|
constant $c \in \R$ and a positive natural number $n_0 \in \N$ such that |
|
|
|
% |
|
|
|
\[ |
|
|
|
f(n) \leq c \cdot g(n),\quad \text{for all}~ n \geq n_0. |
|
|
|
\] |
|
|
|
% |
|
|
|
\end{definition} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{definition}[Algebraic theory]\label{def:algebra} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% |
|
|
|
We will extend the notation to permit $f(n) = \BigO(g(n))$. |
|
|
|
% |
|
|
|
We will often abuse notation and use the body of an anonymous function |
|
|
|
in place of $g$, e.g. $\BigO(\log~n)$ means $\BigO(n \mapsto \log~n)$ |
|
|
|
and stands for a function whose values are bounded above by a |
|
|
|
logarithmic factor (in this dissertation logarithms are always in base |
|
|
|
$2$). If $f = \BigO(\log~n)$ then we say that the order of growth of |
|
|
|
$f$ is logarithmic; if $f = \BigO(n)$ we say that its order of growth |
|
|
|
is linear; if $f = \BigO(n^k)$ for some $k \in \N$ we say that the |
|
|
|
order of growth is polynomial; and if $f = \BigO(2^n)$ then the order |
|
|
|
of growth of $f$ is exponential. |
|
|
|
% |
|
|
|
It is important to note, though, that we write $f = \BigO(1)$ to mean |
|
|
|
that the values of $f$ are bounded above by some constant, meaning |
|
|
|
$1 \not\in \N$, but rather $1$ denotes a family of constant functions |
|
|
|
of type $\N \to \R$. So if $f = \BigO(1)$ then we say that the order |
|
|
|
of growth of $f$ is constant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{definition}[Lower bound] |
|
|
|
We say that a function $f : \N \to \R$ is of order \emph{at least} |
|
|
|
$g : \N \to \R$, and write $f = \Omega(g)$, if there is a positive |
|
|
|
constant $c \in \R$ and a positive natural number $n_0 \in \N$ such |
|
|
|
that |
|
|
|
% |
|
|
|
\[ |
|
|
|
f(n) \geq c \cdot g(n),\quad \text{for all}~n \geq n_0. |
|
|
|
\] |
|
|
|
\end{definition} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\section{Algebraic effects and their handlers} |
|
|
|
\label{sec:algebraic-effects} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See \citeauthor{Bauer18}'s tutorial~\cite{Bauer18} for an excellent |
|
|
|
thorough account of the mathematics underpinning algebraic effects and |
|
|
|
handlers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\section{Typed programming languages} |
|
|
|
\label{sec:pls} |
|
|
|
% |
|
|
|
@ -4698,7 +4726,13 @@ of kinds and types in |
|
|
|
Section~\ref{sec:base-language-types}. Subsequently in |
|
|
|
Section~\ref{sec:base-language-terms} we present the term syntax, |
|
|
|
before presenting the formation rules for types in |
|
|
|
Section~\ref{sec:base-language-type-rules}. |
|
|
|
Section~\ref{sec:base-language-type-rules}. As a convention, we always |
|
|
|
work up to $\alpha$-conversion~\cite{Church32} of types and |
|
|
|
terms. Following \citet{Pierce02} we omit cases in definitions that |
|
|
|
deal only with the bureaucracy of renaming. For any transformation |
|
|
|
$\sembr{-}$ on a term $M$, or type, we write $\sembr{M} \adef M'$ to |
|
|
|
mean that $M'$ is the result of transforming $M$ where implicit |
|
|
|
renaming may have occurred. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% Typically the presentation of a programming language begins with its |
|
|
|
% syntax. If the language is typed there are two possible starting |
|
|
|
@ -4847,7 +4881,7 @@ type, i.e. $\UnitType \defas \Record{\cdot}$. |
|
|
|
% $\Read:\Pre{\Int},\Write:\Abs,\cdot \equiv_{\mathrm{row}} |
|
|
|
% \Read:\Pre{\Int},\cdot$. |
|
|
|
For brevity, we shall often write $\ell : A$ |
|
|
|
to mean $\ell : \Pre{A}$ and omit $\cdot$ for closed rows. |
|
|
|
to mean $\ell : \Pre{A}$. % and omit $\cdot$ for closed rows. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% |
|
|
|
\begin{figure} |
|
|
|
@ -4984,8 +5018,7 @@ $\TyVarCat$, to be generated by: |
|
|
|
\paragraph{Free type variables} Sometimes we need to compute the free |
|
|
|
type variables ($\FTV$) of a given type. To this end we define a |
|
|
|
metafunction $\FTV$ by induction on the type structure, $T$, and |
|
|
|
point-wise on type environments, $\Gamma$. Note that we always work up |
|
|
|
to $\alpha$-conversion~\cite{Church32} of types. |
|
|
|
point-wise on type environments, $\Gamma$. |
|
|
|
% |
|
|
|
\[ |
|
|
|
\ba[t]{@{~}l@{~~~~~~}c@{~}l} |
|
|
|
@ -5065,7 +5098,7 @@ structure as follows. |
|
|
|
\begin{eqs} |
|
|
|
(A \eff E)\sigma &\defas& A\sigma \eff E\sigma\\ |
|
|
|
(A \to C)\sigma &\defas& A\sigma \to C\sigma\\ |
|
|
|
(\forall \alpha^K.C)\sigma &\simdefas& \forall \alpha^K.C\sigma\\ |
|
|
|
(\forall \alpha^K.C)\sigma &\adef& \forall \alpha^K.C\sigma\\ |
|
|
|
\alpha\sigma &\defas& \begin{cases} |
|
|
|
A & \text{if } (\alpha,A) \in \sigma\\ |
|
|
|
\alpha & \text{otherwise} |
|
|
|
@ -5120,7 +5153,7 @@ singleton open effect row $\{\varepsilon\}$, meaning it may be used in |
|
|
|
an effectful context. By contrast, the former type may only be used in |
|
|
|
a strictly pure context, i.e. the effect-free context. |
|
|
|
% |
|
|
|
\dhil{Maybe say something about reasoning effect types} |
|
|
|
%\dhil{Maybe say something about reasoning effect types} |
|
|
|
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We can use the effect system to give precise types to effectful |
|
|
|
@ -5128,7 +5161,7 @@ computations. For example, we can give the signature of some |
|
|
|
polymorphic computation that may only be run in a read-only context |
|
|
|
% |
|
|
|
\[ |
|
|
|
\forall \alpha^\Type, \varepsilon^{\Row_{\{\Read,\Write\}}}. \alpha \eff \{\Read:\Int,\Write:\Abs,\varepsilon\}. |
|
|
|
\forall \alpha^\Type, \varepsilon^{\Row_{\{\Read,\Write\}}}. \alpha \eff \{\Read:\Int;\Write:\Abs;\varepsilon\}. |
|
|
|
\] |
|
|
|
% |
|
|
|
The effect row comprise a nullary $\Read$ operation returning some |
|
|
|
@ -5144,10 +5177,10 @@ operations, because the row ends in an effect variable. |
|
|
|
The type and effect system is also precise about how a higher-order |
|
|
|
function may use its function arguments. For example consider the |
|
|
|
signature of a map-operation over some datatype such as |
|
|
|
$\dec{Option}~\alpha^\Type \defas [\dec{None};\dec{Some}:\alpha]$ |
|
|
|
$\Option~\alpha^\Type \defas [\None;\Some:\alpha;\cdot]$ |
|
|
|
% |
|
|
|
\[ |
|
|
|
\forall \alpha^\Type,\beta^\Type,\varepsilon^{\Row_\emptyset}. \Record{\alpha \to \beta \eff \{\varepsilon\}, \dec{Option}~\alpha} \to \dec{Option}~\beta \eff \{\varepsilon\}. |
|
|
|
\forall \alpha^\Type,\beta^\Type,\varepsilon^{\Row_\emptyset}. \Record{\alpha \to \beta \eff \{\varepsilon\}; \Option~\alpha;\cdot} \to \Option~\beta \eff \{\varepsilon\}. |
|
|
|
\] |
|
|
|
% |
|
|
|
% The $\dec{map}$ function for |
|
|
|
@ -5172,7 +5205,7 @@ e.g. modify their effect rows. The following is the signature of a |
|
|
|
higher-order function which restricts its argument's effect context |
|
|
|
% |
|
|
|
\[ |
|
|
|
\forall \alpha^\Type, \varepsilon^{\Row_{\{\Read\}}},\varepsilon'^{\Row_\emptyset}. (\UnitType \to \alpha \eff \{\Read:\Int,\varepsilon\}) \to (\UnitType \to \alpha \eff \{\Read:\Abs,\varepsilon\}) \eff \{\varepsilon'\}. |
|
|
|
\forall \alpha^\Type, \varepsilon^{\Row_{\{\Read\}}},\varepsilon'^{\Row_\emptyset}. (\UnitType \to \alpha \eff \{\Read:\Int;\varepsilon\}) \to (\UnitType \to \alpha \eff \{\Read:\Abs;\varepsilon\}) \eff \{\varepsilon'\}. |
|
|
|
\] |
|
|
|
% |
|
|
|
The function argument is allowed to perform a $\Read$ operation, |
|
|
|
@ -5183,7 +5216,27 @@ the (right-most) effect row is a singleton row containing a distinct |
|
|
|
effect variable $\varepsilon'$. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\paragraph{Syntactic sugar} |
|
|
|
Detail the syntactic sugar\dots |
|
|
|
Explicitly writing down all of the kinding and type annotations is a |
|
|
|
bit on the heavy side. In order to simplify the notation of our future |
|
|
|
examples we are going to adopt a few conventions. First, we shall not |
|
|
|
write kind annotations, when the kinds can unambiguously be inferred |
|
|
|
from context. Second, we do not write quantifiers in prenex |
|
|
|
position. Type variables that appear unbound in a signature are |
|
|
|
implicitly understood be bound at the outermost level of the type |
|
|
|
(this convention is commonly used by practical programming language, |
|
|
|
e.g. SML~\cite{MilnerTHM97} and |
|
|
|
Haskell~\cite{JonesABBBFHHHHJJLMPRRW99}). Third, we shall adopt the |
|
|
|
convention that the row types for closed records and variants are |
|
|
|
implicitly understood to end in a $\cdot$, whereas for effect rows we |
|
|
|
shall adopt the opposite convention that an effect row is implicitly |
|
|
|
understood to be open and ending in a fresh $\varepsilon$ unless it |
|
|
|
ends in an explicit $\cdot$. In Section~\ref{sec:effect-sugar} we will |
|
|
|
elaborate more on the syntactic sugar for effects. The rationale for |
|
|
|
these conventions is that they align with a ML programmer's intuition |
|
|
|
for monomorphic record and variant types, and in this dissertation |
|
|
|
records and variants will often be monomorphic. Conversely, effect |
|
|
|
rows will most often be open. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Terms} |
|
|
|
\label{sec:base-language-terms} |
|
|
|
@ -5573,7 +5626,7 @@ that the binder $x : A$. |
|
|
|
\slab{Evaluation contexts} & \mathcal{E} \in \EvalCat &::=& [~] \mid \Let \; x \revto \mathcal{E} \; \In \; N |
|
|
|
\end{syntax} |
|
|
|
% |
|
|
|
\dhil{Describe evaluation contexts as functions: decompose and plug.} |
|
|
|
%\dhil{Describe evaluation contexts as functions: decompose and plug.} |
|
|
|
% |
|
|
|
%%\[ |
|
|
|
% Evaluation context lift |
|
|
|
@ -5631,7 +5684,7 @@ follows. |
|
|
|
V & \text{if } (x, V) \in \sigma\\ |
|
|
|
x & \text{otherwise} |
|
|
|
\end{cases}\\ |
|
|
|
(\lambda x^A.M)\sigma &\simdefas& \lambda x^A.M\sigma\\ |
|
|
|
(\lambda x^A.M)\sigma &\adef& \lambda x^A.M\sigma\\ |
|
|
|
(\Lambda \alpha^K.M)\sigma &\defas& \Lambda \alpha^K.M\sigma\\ |
|
|
|
(V~T)\sigma &\defas& V\sigma~T |
|
|
|
\end{eqs} |
|
|
|
@ -5644,15 +5697,15 @@ follows. |
|
|
|
\end{eqs}\bigskip\\ |
|
|
|
\multicolumn{3}{c}{ |
|
|
|
\begin{eqs} |
|
|
|
(\Let\;\Record{\ell = x; y} = V\;\In\;N)\sigma &\simdefas& \Let\;\Record{\ell = x; y} = V\sigma\;\In\;N\sigma\\ |
|
|
|
(\Let\;\Record{\ell = x; y} = V\;\In\;N)\sigma &\adef& \Let\;\Record{\ell = x; y} = V\sigma\;\In\;N\sigma\\ |
|
|
|
(\Case\;(\ell~V)^R\{ |
|
|
|
\ell~x \mapsto M |
|
|
|
; y \mapsto N \})\sigma |
|
|
|
&\simdefas& |
|
|
|
&\adef& |
|
|
|
\Case\;(\ell~V\sigma)^R\{ |
|
|
|
\ell~x \mapsto M\sigma |
|
|
|
; y \mapsto N\sigma \}\\ |
|
|
|
(\Let\;x \revto M \;\In\;N)\sigma &\simdefas& \Let\;x \revto M[V/y] \;\In\;N\sigma |
|
|
|
(\Let\;x \revto M \;\In\;N)\sigma &\adef& \Let\;x \revto M[V/y] \;\In\;N\sigma |
|
|
|
\end{eqs}} |
|
|
|
\ea |
|
|
|
\] |
|
|
|
@ -5676,11 +5729,11 @@ require a change of name of the bound type variable |
|
|
|
(\ell~V)^R\sigma \defas (\ell~V\sigma)^{R\sigma.2}\medskip\\ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{eqs} |
|
|
|
(\Lambda \alpha^K.M)\sigma &\simdefas& \Lambda \alpha^K.M\sigma\\ |
|
|
|
(\Lambda \alpha^K.M)\sigma &\adef& \Lambda \alpha^K.M\sigma\\ |
|
|
|
(\Case\;(\ell~V)^R\{ |
|
|
|
\ell~x \mapsto M |
|
|
|
; y \mapsto N \})\sigma |
|
|
|
&\simdefas& |
|
|
|
&\adef& |
|
|
|
\Case\;(\ell~V\sigma)^{R\sigma.2}\{ |
|
|
|
\ell~x \mapsto M\sigma |
|
|
|
; y \mapsto N\sigma \}. |
|
|
|
@ -5777,8 +5830,8 @@ We begin by showing that substitutions preserve typability. |
|
|
|
By induction on the typing derivations. |
|
|
|
\end{proof} |
|
|
|
% |
|
|
|
\dhil{It is clear to me at this point, that I want to coalesce the |
|
|
|
substitution functions. Possibly define them as maps rather than ordinary functions.} |
|
|
|
% \dhil{It is clear to me at this point, that I want to coalesce the |
|
|
|
% substitution functions. Possibly define them as maps rather than ordinary functions.} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reduction semantics satisfy a \emph{unique decomposition} |
|
|
|
property, which guarantees the existence and uniqueness of complete |
|
|
|
@ -5858,7 +5911,7 @@ meaning that every closed computation term reduces to a trivial |
|
|
|
computation term. In other words, any realisable function in $\BCalc$ |
|
|
|
is effect-free and total. |
|
|
|
% |
|
|
|
\begin{claim}[Type soundness] |
|
|
|
\begin{claim}[Type soundness]\label{clm:soundness} |
|
|
|
If $\typ{}{M : C}$, then there exists $\typ{}{N : C}$ such that |
|
|
|
$M \reducesto^\ast N \not\reducesto$ and $N$ is normal. |
|
|
|
\end{claim} |
|
|
|
@ -5908,18 +5961,9 @@ The reduction semantics are also standard. |
|
|
|
Every occurrence of $f$ in $M$ is replaced by the recursive abstractor |
|
|
|
term, while every $x$ in $M$ is replaced by the value argument $V$. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The introduction of recursion means we obtain a slightly weaker |
|
|
|
progress theorem as some programs may now diverge. |
|
|
|
% |
|
|
|
\begin{theorem}[Progress] |
|
|
|
\label{thm:base-rec-language-progress} |
|
|
|
Suppose $\typ{}{M : C}$, then $M$ is normal or there exists |
|
|
|
$\typ{}{N : C}$ such that $M \reducesto^\ast N$. |
|
|
|
\end{theorem} |
|
|
|
% |
|
|
|
\begin{proof} |
|
|
|
Similar to the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:base-language-progress}. |
|
|
|
\end{proof} |
|
|
|
The introduction of recursion means that the claimed type soundness |
|
|
|
theorem (Claim~\ref{clm:soundness}) no longer holds as some programs |
|
|
|
may now diverge. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Tracking divergence via the effect system} |
|
|
|
\label{sec:tracking-div} |
|
|
|
@ -5951,10 +5995,10 @@ effect signature does not alert us about the potential divergence. In |
|
|
|
fact, in this particular instance the effect row on the computation |
|
|
|
type is empty, which might deceive the doctrinaire to think that this |
|
|
|
function is `pure'. Whether this function is pure or impure depend on |
|
|
|
the precise notion of purity -- which we have yet to choose. In |
|
|
|
Section~\ref{sec:notions-of-purity} we shall make clear the notion of |
|
|
|
purity that we have mind, however, first let us briefly illustrate how |
|
|
|
we might utilise the effect system to track divergence. |
|
|
|
the precise notion of purity -- which we have yet to choose. Shortly |
|
|
|
we shall make clear the notion of purity that we have mind, however, |
|
|
|
first let us briefly illustrate how we might utilise the effect system |
|
|
|
to track divergence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The key to tracking divergence is to modify the \tylab{Rec} to inject |
|
|
|
some primitive operation into the effect row. |
|
|
|
@ -5998,12 +6042,12 @@ suspended computation. |
|
|
|
\begin{mathpar} |
|
|
|
\inferrule*[Right={\tylab{Lam}}] |
|
|
|
{\inferrule*[Right={\tylab{App}}] |
|
|
|
{\typ{\emptyset;\Gamma,\Unit:\Record{}}{\dec{fac} : \Int \to \Int \eff \{\dec{Div}:\ZeroType\}}\\ |
|
|
|
\typ{\emptyset;\Gamma,\Unit:\Record{}}{3 : \Int} |
|
|
|
{\typ{\emptyset;\Gamma,\Unit:\UnitType}{\dec{fac} : \Int \to \Int \eff \{\dec{Div}:\ZeroType\}}\\ |
|
|
|
\typ{\emptyset;\Gamma,\Unit:\UnitType}{3 : \Int} |
|
|
|
} |
|
|
|
{\typc{\emptyset;\Gamma,\Unit:\Record{}}{\dec{fac}~3 : \Int}{\{\dec{Div}:\ZeroType\}}} |
|
|
|
{\typc{\emptyset;\Gamma,\Unit:\UnitType}{\dec{fac}~3 : \Int}{\{\dec{Div}:\ZeroType\}}} |
|
|
|
} |
|
|
|
{\typ{\emptyset;\Gamma}{\lambda\Unit.\dec{fac}~3} : \Unit \to \Int \eff \{\dec{Div}:\ZeroType\}} |
|
|
|
{\typ{\emptyset;\Gamma}{\lambda\Unit.\dec{fac}~3} : \UnitType \to \Int \eff \{\dec{Div}:\ZeroType\}} |
|
|
|
\end{mathpar} |
|
|
|
% |
|
|
|
The information that the computation applies a possibly divergent |
|
|
|
@ -6024,6 +6068,30 @@ non-divergent such as the $\Rec$-variation of the identity function: |
|
|
|
$\Rec\;f\,x.x$. A practical implementation could utilise a static |
|
|
|
termination checker~\cite{Walther94} to obtain more fine-grained |
|
|
|
tracking of divergence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The question remains as to whether we should track divergence. In this |
|
|
|
dissertation I choose not to track divergence in the effect |
|
|
|
system. This choice is a slight departure from the real implementation |
|
|
|
of Links~\cite{LindleyC12}. However, the focus of this part of the |
|
|
|
dissertation is on programming with \emph{user-definable computational |
|
|
|
effects}. Recursion is not a user-definable effect in our setting, |
|
|
|
and therefore, we may regard divergence information as adding noise to |
|
|
|
effect signatures. This choice ought not to alienate programmers as it |
|
|
|
aligns with, say, the notion of purity employed by |
|
|
|
Haskell~\cite{JonesABBBFHHHHJJLMPRRW99,Sabry98}. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% A |
|
|
|
% solemnly sworn pure functional programmer might respond with a |
|
|
|
% resounding ``\emph{yes!}'', whilst a pragmatic functional programmer |
|
|
|
% might respond ``\emph{it depends}''. I side with the latter. My take |
|
|
|
% is that, on one hand if we find ourselves developing safety-critical |
|
|
|
% systems, a static approximation of the dynamic behaviour of functions |
|
|
|
% can be useful, and thus, we ought to track divergence (and other |
|
|
|
% behaviours). On the other hand, if we find ourselves doing general |
|
|
|
% purpose programming, then it may be situational useful to know whether |
|
|
|
% some function may exhibit divergent behaviour |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% By fairly lightweight means we can obtain a finer analysis of |
|
|
|
% $\Rec$-definitions by simply having an additional typing rule for |
|
|
|
% the application of $\Rec$. |
|
|
|
@ -6039,18 +6107,35 @@ tracking of divergence. |
|
|
|
% \end{mathpar} |
|
|
|
% % |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Notions of purity} |
|
|
|
\label{sec:notions-of-purity} |
|
|
|
The term `pure' is heavily overloaded in the programming literature. |
|
|
|
% |
|
|
|
\dhil{In this thesis we use the Haskell notion of purity.} |
|
|
|
% \subsection{Notions of purity} |
|
|
|
% \label{sec:notions-of-purity} |
|
|
|
% The term `pure' is heavily overloaded in the programming literature. |
|
|
|
% % |
|
|
|
% \dhil{In this thesis we use the Haskell notion of purity.} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\section{Related work} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\paragraph{Row polymorphism} Row polymorphism was originally |
|
|
|
introduced by \citet{Wand87} as a typing discipline for extensible |
|
|
|
records. The style of row polymorphism used in this chapter was |
|
|
|
originally developed by \citet{Remy94}. |
|
|
|
records. The style of row polymorphism used in this chapter is due to |
|
|
|
\citet{Remy94}. It was designed to work well with type inference as |
|
|
|
typically featured in the ML-family of programming |
|
|
|
languages. \citeauthor{Remy94} also describes a slight variation of |
|
|
|
this system, where the presence polymorphism annotations may depend on |
|
|
|
a concrete type, e.g. $\ell : \theta.\Int;R$ means that the label is |
|
|
|
polymorphic in its presence, however, if it is present then it has |
|
|
|
presence type $\Int$. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Either of \citeauthor{Remy94}'s row systems have set semantics, i.e. a |
|
|
|
row cannot contain duplicated labels. An alternative semantics based |
|
|
|
on dictionaries is used by \citet{Leijen05}. In |
|
|
|
\citeauthor{Leijen05}'s system labels may be duplicated, which |
|
|
|
introduces a form of scoping for labels, which for example makes it |
|
|
|
possible to shadow fields in a record. There is no notion of presence |
|
|
|
information in \cite{Leijen05}'s system, and thus, as a result |
|
|
|
\citeauthor{Leijen05}-style rows simplify the overall type structure. |
|
|
|
\citet{Leijen14} has used this system as the basis for the effect |
|
|
|
system of Koka. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\citet{MorrisM19} have developed a unifying theory of rows, which |
|
|
|
collects the aforementioned row systems under one umbrella. Their |
|
|
|
@ -6058,13 +6143,23 @@ system provides a general account of record extension and projection, |
|
|
|
and dually, variant injection and branching. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\paragraph{Effect tracking} As mentioned in |
|
|
|
Section~\ref{sec:back-to-directstyle} the original effect system |
|
|
|
was developed by \citet{LucassenG88} to provide a lightweight facility |
|
|
|
for static concurrency analysis. \citet{NielsonN99} \citet{TofteT97} |
|
|
|
\citet{BentonK99} \citet{BentonB07} |
|
|
|
% |
|
|
|
\citet{LindleyC12} used the effect system presented in this chapter to |
|
|
|
support abstraction for database programming in Links. |
|
|
|
Section~\ref{sec:back-to-directstyle} the original effect system was |
|
|
|
developed by \citet{LucassenG88} to provide a lightweight facility for |
|
|
|
static concurrency analysis. Since then effect systems have been |
|
|
|
employed to perform a variety of static analyses, |
|
|
|
e.g. \citet{TofteT94,TofteT97} describe a region-based memory |
|
|
|
management system that makes use of a type and effect system to infer |
|
|
|
and track lifetimes of regions; \citet{BentonK99} use a monadic effect |
|
|
|
system to identify opportunities for optimisations in the intermediate |
|
|
|
language of their ML to Java compiler; |
|
|
|
% |
|
|
|
and \citet{LindleyC12} use a variation of the row system presented in |
|
|
|
this chapter to support abstraction and predicable code generation for |
|
|
|
database programming in Links. Row types are used to give structural |
|
|
|
types to SQL rows in queries, whilst their effect system is used to |
|
|
|
differentiate between \emph{tame} and \emph{wild} functions, where a |
|
|
|
tame function is one whose body can be translated and run directly on |
|
|
|
the database, whereas a wild function cannot. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\chapter{Effect handler oriented programming} |
|
|
|
@ -10189,7 +10284,7 @@ programming~\cite{DolanWM14,DolanWSYM15}. The current incarnation |
|
|
|
features untracked nominal effects and deep handlers with single-use |
|
|
|
resumptions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\dhil{Possibly move to the introduction or background} |
|
|
|
%\dhil{Possibly move to the introduction or background} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\paragraph{Effect-driven concurrency} |
|
|
|
In their tutorial of the Eff programming language \citet{BauerP15} |
|
|
|
@ -11951,7 +12046,7 @@ two reduction rules. |
|
|
|
& f\,W\,(\dRecord{fs, h} \dcons \dhk) |
|
|
|
\end{reductions} |
|
|
|
% |
|
|
|
\dhil{Say something about skip frames?} |
|
|
|
%\dhil{Say something about skip frames?} |
|
|
|
% |
|
|
|
The first rule describes what happens when the pure continuation is |
|
|
|
exhausted and the return clause of the enclosing handler is |
|
|
|
|
