1 / 30

Recursive Type Generativity

Recursive Type Generativity. Derek Dreyer Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago ICFP 2005 Tallinn, Estonia. Why Recursive Modules?. Commonly requested extension to ML Two major categories of motivating examples:

jaegar
Télécharger la présentation

Recursive Type Generativity

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Recursive Type Generativity Derek Dreyer Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago ICFP 2005 Tallinn, Estonia

  2. Why Recursive Modules? • Commonly requested extension to ML • Two major categories of motivating examples: • Splitting up mutually recursive functions and datatypes into separate modules • Encoding certain kinds of data structures that are mutually recursive with a functor application • We’ll see examples of both of these shortly

  3. Recursive ADTs • What are “Recursive ADTs”? • Want to define two ADTs X and Y, whose implementations are recursive with each other,and also abstract from each other • Modules ¼ ADTs • Recursive modules ¼ Recursive ADTs

  4. The Problem • Semantics of Recursive ADTs not well understood • Not possible to express them in System F (+ recursion) • Goal of this work: Study and remedy this problem at the level of System F • This is a prerequisite for understanding semantics of recursive modules.

  5. Overview • Motivating examples • High-level description of my approach • Separate compilation and other issues • Related work and conclusion

  6. GUI-Widget Example • Both interfaces refer to both abstract types. • GUI specifies operations that are privy to the implementation of the gui type, but not of the wid type. • WID specifies operations that are privy to the implementation of the wid type, but not of the gui type.

  7. Abstraction After the Fact: Easy

  8. Abstraction Before the Fact: Hard

  9. Abstraction Before the Fact: Hard • Existing approaches sidestep the issue: • E.g. in Moscow ML, the gui and wid type representations would need to be visible to both gui_adt and wid_adt Not in scope

  10. Encoding of SML Functor

  11. Bootstrapped Heap Example

  12. Problem We need heap_typ up here... ...but it only comes into scope down here.

  13. Applicative Solution • Can avoid this problem by using applicative functors. • This doesn’t help us if we are given a MkHeap with the generative type (as is the case in SML). • Are applicative functors really a prerequisite of recursive ADT’s? • Even if they were, this still wouldn’t help us with the GUI-Widget example.

  14. Overview • Motivating examples • High-level description of my approach • Separate compilation and other issues • Related work and conclusion

  15. Key Idea • Problem in both examples is that we want to refer to an ADT before its definition has been given. • So: The key idea is to allow abstract data types to be “created” before their definitions are given. • This is analogous to the idea of recursive backpatching (aka value recursion), but at the type level instead of the term level.

  16. Bootstrapped Heap Encoding • First, introduce fresh abstract types that are as yet undefined.

  17. Bootstrapped Heap Encoding • Now we can define boot_typ in terms of heap_typ because heap_typ is in scope.

  18. Bootstrapped Heap Encoding • The unpacking gives us a fresh type heap_typ’.

  19. Bootstrapped Heap Encoding • Finally, we can backpatch the definition for heap_typ.

  20. GUI-Widget Encoding

  21. GUI-Widget Encoding

  22. GUI-Widget Encoding

  23. Overview • Motivating examples • High-level description of my approach • Separate compilation and other issues • Related work and conclusion

  24. Separate Compilation • What if we want to compile the GUI and Widget implementations separately?

  25. Another Form of Universal • To support separate compilation, we allow parameterization over undefined var’s (" K).

  26. Recursive Linking • Now we can link the ADTs recursively.

  27. Rest of the Paper • Type and effect system: ; ` e : A [] • Avoiding type cycles • We avoid equi-recursive types via ML-style division intotransparent “type” definitions ( := A) andopaque “datatype” definitions ( :¼ A). • Encoding of existential types in “destination-passing style” • || 9: K. A ||DPS = 8" K. unit A

  28. Related Work • Main related work is Flatt and Felleisen’s units. • Intended as modules for Scheme, but [FF98] also show how to support abstract type components in modules. • Type system allows recursive definitions of ADT’s. • But unit constructs are somewhat heavy and awkward. • As a result, ML module system folks have ignored it as a strange zoo animal, but we shouldn’t. • In some sense, I have given a simpler, cleaner way of accounting for the “good” ideas of units, which fits in better with the traditional account of ADT’s.

  29. Future Work • Defining a recursive module extension to ML by translation into this calculus • Combining with other improvements to ML module system • This approach is very operational. Can we develop any semantic model or prove any interesting abstraction theorems?

  30. Thank you!

More Related