language.tex 44.8 KB
Newer Older
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
1
In this section we formalize the ideas we outlined in the introduction. We start by the definition of types followed by the language and its reduction semantics. The static semantics is the core of our work: we first present a declarative type system that deduces (possibly many) types for well-typed expressions and then the algorithms to decide whether an expression is well typed or not. 
2
3
4

\subsection{Types}

Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
5
\begin{definition}[Types]\label{def:types} The set of types \types{} is formed by the terms $t$ coinductively produced by the grammar:\vspace{-2mm}
6
7
8
9
10
\[
\begin{array}{lrcl}
\textbf{Types} & t & ::= & b\alt t\to t\alt t\times t\alt t\vee t \alt \neg t \alt \Empty 
\end{array}
\]
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
11
and that satisfy the following conditions\vspace{-1mm}
12
\begin{itemize}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
13
14
\item (regularity) every term has a finite number of different sub-terms;
\item (contractivity) every infinite branch of a term contains an infinite number of occurrences of the
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
15
arrow or product type constructors.\vspace{-1mm}
16
17
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
18
We use the following abbreviations: $
19
20
    t_1 \land t_2 \eqdef \neg (\neg t_1 \vee \neg t_2)$, 
    $t_ 1 \setminus t_2 \eqdef t_1 \wedge \neg t_2$, $\Any \eqdef \neg \Empty$.
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
21
$b$ ranges over basic types
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
22
(e.g., \Int, \Bool),
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
$\Empty$ and $\Any$ respectively denote the empty (that types no value)
and top (that types all values) types. Coinduction accounts for
recursive types and the condition on infinite branches bars out
ill-formed types such as 
$t = t \lor t$ (which does not carry any information about the set
denoted by the type) or $t = \neg t$ (which cannot represent any
set). 
It also ensures that the binary relation $\vartriangleright
\,\subseteq\!\types^{2}$ defined by $t_1 \lor t_2 \vartriangleright
t_i$, $t_1 \land t_2 \vartriangleright
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
33
t_i$, $\neg t \vartriangleright t$ is Noetherian.
34
This gives an induction principle on $\types$ that we
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
35
will use without any further explicit reference to the relation.\footnote{In a nutshell, we can do proofs by induction on the structure of unions and negations---and, thus, intersections---but arrows, products, and basic types are the base cases for the induction.} 
36
37
38
39
40
We refer to $ b $, $\times$, and $ \to $ as \emph{type constructors}
and to $ \lor $, $ \land $, $ \lnot $, and $ \setminus $
as \emph{type connectives}.

The subtyping relation for these types, noted $\leq$, is the one defined
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
41
by~\citet{Frisch2008} to which the reader may refer. A detailed description of the algorithm to decide it can be found in~\cite{Cas15}.
42
For this presentation it suffices to consider that
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
43
types are interpreted as sets of \emph{values} ({i.e., either
44
constants, $\lambda$-abstractions, or pair of values: see
45
Section~\ref{sec:syntax} right below) that have that type, and that subtyping is set
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
46
containment (i.e., a type $s$ is a subtype of a type $t$ if and only if $t$
47
48
contains all the values of type $s$). In particular, $s\to t$
contains all $\lambda$-abstractions that when applied to a value of
49
type $s$, if their computation terminates, then they return a result of
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
50
type $t$ (e.g., $\Empty\to\Any$ is the set of all
51
52
53
54
functions\footnote{\label{allfunctions}Actually, for every type $t$,
all types of the form $\Empty{\to}t$ are equivalent and each of them
denotes the set of all functions.} and $\Any\to\Empty$ is the set
of functions that diverge on every argument). Type connectives
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
55
56
(i.e., union, intersection, negation) are interpreted as the
corresponding set-theoretic operators (e.g.,~$s\vee t$ is the
57
58
union of the values of the two types). We use $\simeq$ to denote the
symmetric closure of $\leq$: thus $s\simeq t$ means that $s$ and $t$ denote the same set of values and, as such, they are semantically the same type.
59
60

\subsection{Syntax}\label{sec:syntax}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
wording    
Giuseppe Castagna committed
61
The expressions $e$ and values $v$ of our language are inductively generated by the following grammars:
62
\begin{equation}\label{expressions}
63
\begin{array}{lrclr}  
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
wording    
Giuseppe Castagna committed
64
  \textbf{Expr} &e &::=& c\alt x\alt ee\alt\lambda^{\wedge_{i\in I}s_i\to t_i} x.e\alt \pi_j e\alt(e,e)\alt\tcase{e}{t}{e}{e}\\[1mm]
65
  \textbf{Values} &v &::=& c\alt\lambda^{\wedge_{i\in I}s_i\to t_i} x.e\alt (v,v)
66
67
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
wording    
Giuseppe Castagna committed
68
for $j=1,2$. In~\eqref{expressions}, $c$ ranges over constants
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
69
(e.g., \texttt{true}, \texttt{false}, \texttt{1}, \texttt{2},
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
...) which are values of basic types (we use $\basic{c}$ to denote the
basic type of the constant $c$); $x$ ranges over variables; $(e,e)$
denote pairs and $\pi_i e$ their projections; $\tcase{e}{t}{e_1}{e_2}$
denotes the type-case expression that evaluates either $e_1$ or $e_2$
according to whether the value returned by $e$ (if any) is of type $t$
or not; $\lambda^{\wedge_{i\in I}s_i\to t_i} x.e$ is a value of type
$\wedge_{i\in I}s_i\to t_i$ and denotes the function of parameter $x$
and body $e$. An expression has an intersection type if and only if it
has all the types that compose the intersection. Therefore,
intuitively, $\lambda^{\wedge_{i\in I}s_i\to t_i} x.e$ is a well-typed
value if for all $i{\in} I$ the hypothesis that $x$ is of type $s_i$
implies that the body $e$ has type $t_i$, that is to say, it is well
typed if $\lambda^{\wedge_{i\in I}s_i\to t_i} x.e$ has type $s_i\to
83
84
t_i$ for all $i\in I$. Every value is associated to a type: the type of $c$ is $\basic c$; the type of
 $\lambda^{\wedge_{i\in I}s_i\to t_i} x.e$ is $\wedge_{i\in I}s_i\to t_i$; and, inductively,
85
86
the type of a pair of values is the product of the types of the
values.
87
88
89



90
\subsection{Dynamic semantics}\label{sec:opsem}
91

Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
92
The dynamic semantics is defined as a classic left-to-right call-by-value reduction for a $\lambda$-calculus with pairs, enriched with specific rules for type-cases. We have the following  notions of reduction:
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
\[
\begin{array}{rcll}
  (\lambda^{\wedge_{i\in I}s_i\to t_i} x.e)v &\reduces& e\subst x v\\
  \pi_i(v_1,v_2) &\reduces& v_i & i=1,2\\
  \tcase{v}{t}{e_1}{e_2} &\reduces& e_1 &v\in t\\ 
  \tcase{v}{t}{e_1}{e_2} &\reduces& e_2 &v\not\in t\\ 
\end{array}
\]
The semantics of type-cases uses the relation $v\in t$ that we
informally defined in the previous section. We delay its formal
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
103
104
definition to Section~\ref{sec:type-schemes} (where it deals with some corner cases for negated arrow types). Contextual reductions are
defined by the following evaluation contexts:
105
106
107
108
109
110
\[
\Cx[] ::= [\,]\alt \Cx e\alt v\Cx \alt (\Cx,e)\alt (v,\Cx)\alt \pi_i\Cx\alt \tcase{\Cx}tee
\]
As usual we denote by $\Cx[e]$ the term obtained by replacing $e$ for
the hole in the context $\Cx$ and we have that $e\reduces e'$ implies
$\Cx[e]\reduces\Cx[e']$.
111

Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
112
\subsection{Static semantics}\label{sec:static}
113

114
While the syntax and reduction semantics are, on the whole, pretty
115
116
standard, for the type system we will have to introduce several
unconventional features that we anticipated in
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
117
Section~\ref{sec:challenges} and are at the core of our work. Let
118
us start with the standard part, that is the typing of the functional
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
119
core and the use of subtyping, given by the following typing rules:
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
\begin{mathpar}
  \Infer[Const]
      { }
      {\Gamma\vdash c:\basic{c}}
      { }
  \quad
  \Infer[App]
      {
128
        \Gamma \vdash e_1: \arrow {t_1}{t_2}\quad
129
130
131
132
133
134
        \Gamma \vdash e_2: t_1
      }
      { \Gamma \vdash {e_1}{e_2}: t_2 }
      { }
  \quad
  \Infer[Abs+]
135
      {{\scriptstyle\forall i\in I}\quad\Gamma,x:s_i\vdash e:t_i}
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
      {
      \Gamma\vdash\lambda^{\wedge_{i\in I}\arrow {s_i} {t_i}}x.e:\textstyle \bigwedge_{i\in I}\arrow {s_i} {t_i}
      }
      { }
%      \Infer[If]
%            {\Gamma\vdash e:t_0\\
%            %t_0\not\leq \neg t \Rightarrow
%            \Gamma \cvdash + e t e_1:t'\\
%            %t_0\not\leq t \Rightarrow
%            \Gamma \cvdash - e t e_2:t'}
%            {\Gamma\vdash \ite {e} t {e_1}{e_2}: t'}
%            { }
 \\
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
149
      \Infer[Sel]
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
  {\Gamma \vdash e:\pair{t_1}{t_2}}
  {\Gamma \vdash \pi_i e:t_i}
  { }
  \qquad
  \Infer[Pair]
  {\Gamma \vdash e_1:t_1 \and \Gamma \vdash e_2:t_2}
  {\Gamma \vdash (e_1,e_2):\pair {t_1} {t_2}}
  { }
  \qquad
    \Infer[Subs]
      { \Gamma \vdash e:t\\t\leq t' }
      { \Gamma \vdash e: t' }
      { }
  \qquad
\end{mathpar}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
165
These rules are quite standard and do not need any particular explanation besides those already given in Section~\ref{sec:syntax}. Just notice that we used a classic subsumption rule (i.e., \Rule{Subs}) to embed subtyping in the type system. Let us next focus on the unconventional aspects of our system, from the simplest to the hardest.
166

Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
167
The first unconventional aspect is that, as explained in
168
Section~\ref{sec:challenges}, our type assumptions are about
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
169
expressions. Therefore, in our rules the type environments, ranged over
170
by $\Gamma$, map \emph{expressions}---rather than just variables---into
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
wording    
Giuseppe Castagna committed
171
types. This explains why the classic typing rule for variables is replaced by a more general \Rule{Env} rule defined below:
172
173
174
175
176
177
\begin{mathpar}
  \Infer[Env]
      { }
      { \Gamma \vdash e: \Gamma(e) }
      { e\in\dom\Gamma }
  \qquad
178
  \Infer[Inter]
179
180
181
182
      { \Gamma \vdash e:t_1\\\Gamma \vdash e:t_2 }
      { \Gamma \vdash e: t_1 \wedge t_2 }
      { }
\end{mathpar}
183
The \Rule{Env} rule is coupled with the standard intersection introduction rule \Rule{Inter}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
184
which allows us to deduce for a complex expression the intersection of
185
186
187
188
the types recorded by the occurrence typing analysis in the
environment $\Gamma$ with the static type deduced for the same
expression by using the other typing rules. This same intersection
rule is also used to infer the second unconventional aspect of our
189
system, that is, the fact that $\lambda$-abstractions can have negated
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
190
arrow types, as long as these negated types do not make the type deduced for the function empty:
191
192
193
\begin{mathpar}
  \Infer[Abs-]
      {\Gamma \vdash \lambda^{\wedge_{i\in I}\arrow {s_i} {t_i}}x.e:t}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
194
      { \Gamma \vdash\lambda^{\wedge_{i\in I}\arrow {s_i} {t_i}}x.e:\neg(t_1\to t_2)  }
195
196
      { (t\wedge\neg(t_1\to t_2))\not\simeq\Empty }
\end{mathpar}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
%\beppe{I have doubt: is this safe or should we play it safer and
%  deduce $t\wedge\neg(t_1\to t_2)$? In other terms is is possible to
%  deduce two separate negation of arrow types that when intersected
%  with the interface are non empty, but by intersecting everything
%  makes the type empty? It should be safe since otherwise intersection
%  would not be admissible in semantic subtyping (see Theorem 6.15 in
%  JACM), but I think we should doube ckeck it.}
204
As explained in Section~\ref{sec:challenges}, we need to be able to
205
206
207
deduce for, say, the function $\lambda^{\Int\to\Int} x.x$ a type such
as $(\Int\to\Int)\wedge\neg(\Bool\to\Bool)$ (in particular, if this is
the term $e$ in equation \eqref{bistwo} we need to deduce for it the
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
208
209
type $(\Int\to t)\wedge\neg(\Int\to\neg\Bool)$, that is,
$(\Int\to t)\setminus(\Int\to\neg\Bool)$ ). But the sole rule \Rule{Abs+}
210
211
above does not allow us to deduce  negations of
arrows for abstractions: the rule \Rule{Abs-} makes this possible. As an aside, note that this kind
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
212
of deduction was already present in the system by~\citet{Frisch2008}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
213
though it that system this presence was motivated by the semantics of types rather than, as in our case,
214
215
216
217
218
by the soundness of the type system.

Rules \Rule{Abs+} and \Rule{Abs-} are not enough to deduce for
$\lambda$-abstractions all the types we wish. In particular, these
rules alone are not enough to type general overloaded functions. For
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
219
instance, consider this simple example of a function that applied to an
220
integer returns its successor and applied to anything else returns
221
\textsf{true}:
222
\[
223
\lambda^{(\Int\to\Int)\wedge(\neg\Int\to\Bool)} x\,.\,\tcase{x}{\Int}{x+1}{\textsf{true}}
224
\]
225
Clearly, the expression above is well typed, but the rule \Rule{Abs+} alone
226
is not enough to type it. In particular, according to \Rule{Abs+} we
227
have to prove that under the hypothesis that $x$ is of type $\Int$ the expression
228
$(\tcase{x}{\Int}{x+1}{\textsf{true}})$ is of type $\Int$, too.  That is, that under the
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
229
hypothesis that $x$ has type $\Int\wedge\Int$ (we apply occurrence
230
typing) the expression $x+1$ is of type \Int{} (which holds) and that under the
231
hypothesis that $x$ has type $\Int\setminus\Int$, that is $\Empty$
232
233
(we apply once more occurrence typing), \textsf{true} is of type \Int{}
(which \emph{does not} hold). The problem is that we are trying to type the
234
second case of a type-case even if we know that there is no chance that, when $x$ is bound to an integer,
235
236
that case will be ever selected. The fact that it is never selected is witnessed
by the presence of a type hypothesis with  $\Empty$ type. To
237
avoid this problem (and type the term above) we add the rule
238
239
240
\Rule{Efq} (\emph{ex falso quodlibet}) that allows the system to deduce any type
for an expression that will never be selected, that is, for an
expression whose type environment contains an empty assumption:
241
242
243
244
245
246
\begin{mathpar}
  \Infer[Efq]
  { }
  { \Gamma, (e:\Empty) \vdash e': t }
  { }
\end{mathpar}
247
248
249
Once more, this kind of deduction was already present in the system
by~\citet{Frisch2008} to type full fledged overloaded functions,
though it was embedded in the typing rule for the type-case. Here we
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
250
need the rule \Rule{Efq}, which is more general, to ensure the
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
251
252
property of subject reduction.
%\beppe{Example?}
253

254
255
Finally, there is one last rule in our type system, the one that
implements occurrence typing, that is, the rule for the
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
256
type-case:
257
258
259
260
261

\begin{mathpar}
    \Infer[Case]
        {\Gamma\vdash e:t_0\\
        %t_0\not\leq \neg t \Rightarrow
262
        \Gamma \evdash e t \Gamma_1 \\ \Gamma_1 \vdash e_1:t'\\
263
        %t_0\not\leq t \Rightarrow
264
        \Gamma \evdash e {\neg t} \Gamma_2 \\ \Gamma_2 \vdash e_2:t'}
265
266
        {\Gamma\vdash \tcase {e} t {e_1}{e_2}: t'}
        { }
267
\end{mathpar}
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
The rule \Rule{Case} checks whether the expression $e$, whose type is
being tested, is well-typed and then performs the occurrence typing
analysis that produces the environments $\Gamma_i$'s under whose
hypothesis the expressions $e_i$'s are typed. The production of these
environments is represented by the judgments $\Gamma \evdash e
{(\neg)t} \Gamma_i$. The intuition is that when $\Gamma \evdash e t
\Gamma_1$ is provable then $\Gamma_1$ is a version of $\Gamma$
extended with type hypotheses for all expressions occurring in $e$,
type hypotheses that can be deduced assuming that the test $e\in t$
succeeds. Likewise, $\Gamma \evdash e {\neg t} \Gamma_2$ (notice the negation on $t$) extends
$\Gamma$ with the hypothesis deduced assuming that $e\in\neg t$, that
is, for when the test $e\in t$ fails.
280

281
All it remains to do is to show how to deduce judgments of the form
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
282
$\Gamma \evdash e t \Gamma'$. For that we first define how
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
283
284
to denote occurrences of an expression. These are identified by paths in the
syntax tree of the expressions, that is, by possibly empty strings of
285
286
287
288
289
290
characters denoting directions starting from the root of the tree (we
use $\epsilon$ for the empty string/path, which corresponds to the
root of the tree).

Let $e$ be an expression and $\varpi\in\{0,1,l,r,f,s\}^*$ a
\emph{path}; we denote $\occ e\varpi$ the occurrence of $e$ reached by
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
the path $\varpi$, that is (for $i=1,2$, and undefined otherwise)
%% \[
%% \begin{array}{l}
%% \begin{array}{r@{\downarrow}l@{\quad=\quad}l}
%% e&\epsilon & e\\
%% e_0e_1& i.\varpi & \occ{e_i}\varpi\qquad i=0,1\\
%% (e_0,e_1)& l.\varpi & \occ{e_0}\varpi\\
%% (e_0,e_1)& r.\varpi & \occ{e_1}\varpi\\
%% \pi_1 e& f.\varpi & \occ{e}\varpi\\
%% \pi_2 e& s.\varpi & \occ{e}\varpi\\
%% \end{array}\\
%% \text{undefined otherwise}
%% \end{array}
%% \]
305
\[
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
306
307
308
\begin{array}{r@{\downarrow}l@{\quad=\quad}lr@{\downarrow}l@{\quad=\quad}lr@{\downarrow}l@{\quad=\quad}l}
e&\epsilon & e & (e_0,e_1)& l.\varpi & \occ{e_0}\varpi &\pi_1 e& f.\varpi & \occ{e}\varpi\\
e_0e_1& i.\varpi & \occ{e_i}\varpi \quad\qquad& (e_0,e_1)& r.\varpi & \occ{e_1}\varpi \quad\qquad&
309
310
311
312
313
\pi_2 e& s.\varpi & \occ{e}\varpi\\
\end{array}
\]
To ease our analysis we used different directions for each kind of
term. So we have $0$ and $1$ for the function and argument of an
314
application, $l$ and $r$ for the $l$eft and $r$ight expressions forming a pair,
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
315
and $f$ and $s$ for the argument of a $f$irst or of a $s$econd projection. Note also that we do not consider occurrences
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
316
under $\lambda$'s (since their type is frozen in their annotations) and type-cases (since they reset the analysis).
317

Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
318
The judgments  $\Gamma \evdash e t \Gamma'$ are then deduced by the following two rules: \begin{mathpar}
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
%        \Infer[Base]
%            { \Gamma \vdash e':t' }
%            { \Gamma \cvdash p e t e':t' }
%            { }
%            \qquad
%        \Infer[Path]
%            { \pvdash \Gamma p e t \varpi:t_1 \\ \Gamma,(\occ e \varpi:t_1) \cvdash p e t e':t_2 }
%            { \Gamma \cvdash p e t e':t_2 }
%            { }
    \Infer[Base]
      { }
330
      { \Gamma \evdash e t \Gamma }
331
332
333
      { }
    \qquad
    \Infer[Path]
334
335
      { \pvdash {\Gamma'} e t \varpi:t' \\ \Gamma \evdash e t \Gamma' }
      { \Gamma \evdash e t \Gamma',(\occ e \varpi:t') }
336
      { }
337
\end{mathpar}
338
339
340
341
These rules describe how to produce by occurrence typing the type
environments while checking that an expression $e$ has type $t$. They state that $(i)$ we can
deduce from $\Gamma$ all the hypothesis already in $\Gamma$ (rule
\Rule{Base}) and that $(ii)$ if we can deduce a given type $t'$ for a particular
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
342
occurrence $\varpi$ of the expression $e$ being checked, then we can add this
343
hypothesis to the produced type environment (rule \Rule{Path}). The rule
344
\Rule{Path} uses a (last) auxiliary judgement $\pvdash {\Gamma}  e t
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
345
\varpi:t'$ to deduce the type $t'$ of the occurrence $\occ e \varpi$ when
346
347
348
349
350
checking $e$ against $t$ under the hypotheses $\Gamma$. This rule \Rule{Path} is subtler than it may appear at
first sight, insofar as the deduction of the type for $\varpi$ may already use
some hypothesis on $\occ e \varpi$ (in $\Gamma'$) and, from an
algorithmic viewpoint, this will imply the computation of a fix-point
(see Section~\ref{sec:typenv}). The last ingredient for our type system is the deduction of the
351
judgements of the form $\pvdash {\Gamma}  e t \varpi:t'$ where
352
$\varpi$ is a path to an expression occurring in $e$. This is given by the following set
353
354
355
of rules.
\begin{mathpar}
    \Infer[PSubs]
356
357
        { \pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi:t_1 \\ t_1\leq t_2 }
        { \pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi:t_2 }
358
        { }
359
        \qquad
360
    \Infer[PInter]
361
362
        { \pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi:t_1 \\ \pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi:t_2 }
        { \pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi:t_1\land t_2 }
363
        { }
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
364
\\
365
366
    \Infer[PTypeof]
        { \Gamma \vdash \occ e \varpi:t' }
367
        { \pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi:t' }
368
369
        { }
        \qquad
370
    \Infer[PEps]
371
        { }
372
        { \pvdash \Gamma e t \epsilon:t }
373
374
        { }
        \qquad
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
375
376
377
\end{mathpar}
\begin{mathpar}
%\\        \\
378
    \Infer[PAppR]
379
380
        { \pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi.0:\arrow{t_1}{t_2} \\ \pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi:t_2'}
        { \pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi.1:\neg t_1 }
381
        { t_2\land t_2' \simeq \Empty  }
382
383
        \\
    \Infer[PAppL]
384
385
        { \pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi.1:t_1 \\ \pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi:t_2 }
        { \pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi.0:\neg (\arrow {t_1} {\neg t_2}) }
386
387
388
        { }
        \qquad
    \Infer[PPairL]
389
390
        { \pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi:\pair{t_1}{t_2} }
        { \pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi.l:t_1 }
391
392
393
        { }
        \\
    \Infer[PPairR]
394
395
        { \pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi:\pair{t_1}{t_2} }
        { \pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi.r:t_2 }
396
397
398
        { }
        \qquad
    \Infer[PFst]
399
400
        { \pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi:t' }
        { \pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi.f:\pair {t'} \Any }
401
402
403
        { }
        \qquad
    \Infer[PSnd]
404
405
        { \pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi:t' }
        { \pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi.s:\pair \Any {t'} }
406
407
        { }
\end{mathpar}
408
409
410
These rules implement the analysis described in
Section~\ref{sec:ideas} for functions and extend it to products.  Let
us comment each rule in detail. \Rule{PSubs} is just subsumption for
411
the deduction $\vdashp$. The rule \Rule{PInter} combined with
412
413
\Rule{PTypeof} allows the system to deduce for an occurrence $\varpi$
the intersection of the static type of $\occ e \varpi$ (deduced by
414
\Rule{PTypeof}) with the type deduced for $\varpi$ by the other $\vdashp$ rules. The
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
415
rule \Rule{PEps} is the starting point of the analysis: if we are assuming that the test $e\in t$ succeeds, then we can assume that $e$ (i.e.,
416
$\occ e\epsilon$) has type $t$ (recall that assuming that the test $e\in t$ fails corresponds to having $\neg t$ at the index of the turnstyle).
417
The rule \Rule{PApprR} implements occurrence typing for
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
the arguments of applications, since it states that if a function maps
arguments of type $t_1$ in results of type $t_2$ and an application of
this function yields results (in $t'_2$) that cannot be in $t_2$
(since $t_2\land t_2' \simeq \Empty$), then the argument of this application cannot be of type $t_1$. \Rule{PAppR} performs the
occurrence typing analysis for the function part of an application,
since it states that if an application has type $t_2$ and the argument
of this application has type $t_1$, then the function in this
application cannot have type $t_1\to\neg t_2$. Rules \Rule{PPair\_}
426
are straightforward since they state that the $i$-th projection of a pair
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
427
that is of type $\pair{t_1}{t_2}$ must be of type $t_i$. So are the last two
428
429
430
431
432
rules that essentially state that if $\pi_1 e$ (respectively, $\pi_2
e$) is of type $t'$, then the type of $e$ must be of the form
$\pair{t'}\Any$ (respectively, $\pair\Any{t'}$).

This concludes the presentation of our type system, which satisfies
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
433
434
435
the property of safety, deduced, as customary, from the properties
of progress and subject reduction (\emph{cf.} Appendix~\ref{app:soundness}).
\begin{theorem}[type safety]
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
436
437
438
For every expression $e$ such that $\varnothing\vdash e:t$ either  $e$
diverges or there
exists a value $v$ of type $t$ such that $e\reduces^* v$.
439
\end{theorem}
440
441
442
443
444





445
446

\subsection{Algorithmic system}
Kim Nguyễn's avatar
Kim Nguyễn committed
447
\label{ssec:algorithm}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
448
The system we defined in the previous section implements the ideas we
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
449
illustrated in the introduction and it is safe. Now the problem is to
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
450
451
452
decide whether an expression is well typed or not, that is, to find an
algorithm that given a type environment $\Gamma$ and an expression $e$
decides whether there exists a type $t$ such that $\Gamma\vdash e:t$
453
454
is provable. For that we need to solve essentially two problems:
$(i)$~how to handle the fact that it is possible to deduce several
455
types for the same well-typed expression and $(ii)$~how to compute the
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
auxiliary deduction system for paths.

Multiple types have two distinct origins each requiring a distinct
technical solution.  The first origin is the rule \Rule{Abs-} by which
it is possible to deduce for every well-typed lambda abstractions
infinitely many types, that is the annotation of the function
intersected with as many negations of arrow types as it is possible
without making the type empty. To handle this multiplicity we use and
464
adapt the technique of \emph{type schemes} defined
465
by~\citet{Frisch2008}. Type schemes---whose definition we recall in  Section~\ref{sec:type-schemes}---are canonical representations of
466
the infinite sets of types of $\lambda$-abstractions. The second origin is due
467
to the presence of structural rules\footnote{\label{fo:rules}In logic, logical rules
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
468
469
470
  refer to a particular connective (here, a type constructor, that is,
  either $\to$, or $\times$, or $b$), while identity rules (e.g.,
  axioms and cuts) and structural rules (e.g., weakening and
471
  contraction) do not.} such as \Rule{Subs} and \Rule{Inter}. We
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
472
handle this presence in the classic way: we define an algorithmic system that
473
tracks the miminum type---actually, the minimum \emph{type scheme}---of an
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
474
expression; this system is obtained from the original system by removing
475
the two structural rules and by distributing suitable checks of the subtyping
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
476
relation in the remaining rules. To do that in the presence of
477
478
set-theoretic types we need to define some operators on types, which are given
in Section~\ref{sec:typeops}.
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
479
480

For what concerns the use of the auxiliary derivation for the $ $
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
481
judgments, we present in Section~\ref{sec:typenv} an algorithm that is sound and satisfies a limited form of
482
483
completeness. All these notions are then used in the algorithmic typing
system given in Section~\ref{sec:algorules}.
484

Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
485
486
487
%% \beppe{\begin{enumerate}
%%  \item type of functions -> type schemes
%%   \item elimination rules (app, proj,if) ->operations on types and how to compute them
488
%%   \item not syntax directed: rules Subs, Inter, Env.
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
489
490
491
%%   \item Compute the environments for occurrence typing. Algorithm to compute $\Gamma\vdash\Gamma$
%% \end{enumerate}
%% }
492
493


494
\subsubsection{Type schemes}\label{sec:type-schemes}
495
We introduce the new syntactic category of \emph{types schemes} which are the terms~$\ts$ inductively produced by the following grammar.
496
497
498
499
500
\[
\begin{array}{lrcl}
  \textbf{Type schemes} & \ts & ::= & t \alt \tsfun {\arrow t t ; \cdots ; \arrow t t} \alt \ts \tstimes \ts \alt \ts \tsor \ts \alt \tsempty
\end{array}
\]
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
501
Type schemes denote sets of types, as formally stated by the following definition:
502
\begin{definition}[Interpretation of type schemes]
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
503
  We define the function $\tsint {\_}$ that maps type schemes into sets of types.\vspace{-3mm}
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
  \begin{align*}
    \begin{array}{lcl}
    \tsint t &=& \{s\alt t \leq s\}\\
    \tsint {\tsfunone {t_i} {s_i}_{i=1..n}} &=& \{s\alt
    \exists s_0 = \bigwedge_{i=1..n} \arrow {t_i} {s_i}
    \land \bigwedge_{j=1..m} \neg (\arrow {t_j'} {s_j'}).\ 
    \Empty \not\simeq s_0 \leq s \}\\
    \tsint {\ts_1 \tstimes \ts_2} &=& \{s\alt \exists t_1 \in \tsint {\ts_1}\ 
    \exists t_2 \in \tsint {\ts_2}.\ \pair {t_1} {t_2} \leq s\}\\
    \tsint {\ts_1 \tsor \ts_2} &=& \{s\alt \exists t_1 \in \tsint {\ts_1}\ 
    \exists t_2 \in \tsint {\ts_2}.\ {t_1} \vee {t_2} \leq s\}\\
    \tsint \tsempty &=& \varnothing
    \end{array}
  \end{align*}
\end{definition}
Note that $\tsint \ts$ is closed under subsumption and intersection
520
 and that $\tsempty$, which denotes the
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
521
empty set of types is different from $\Empty$ whose interpretation is
522
523
the set of all types.

524
\begin{lemma}[\cite{Frisch2008}]
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
  Let $\ts$ be a type scheme and $t$ a type. It is possible to decide the assertion $t \in \tsint \ts$,
  which we also write $\ts \leq t$.
\end{lemma}

We can now formally define the relation $v\in t$ used in
Section~\ref{sec:opsem} to define the dynamic semantics of
the language. First, we associate each (possibly, not well-typed)
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
532
value to a type scheme representing the best type information about
533
534
535
536
537
the value. By induction on the definition of values: $\tyof c {} =
\basic c$, $\tyof {\lambda^{\wedge_{i\in I}s_i\to t_i} x.e}{}=
\tsfun{s_i\to t_i}_{i\in I}$, $\tyof {(v_1,v_2)}{} = \tyof
      {v_1}{}\tstimes\tyof {v_1}{}$. Then we have $v\in t\iffdef \tyof
      v{}\leq t$.
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
538
      
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
539
We also need to perform intersections of type schemes so as to intersect the static type of an expression (i.e., the one deduced by conventional rules) with the one deduced by occurrence typing (i.e., the one derived by $\vdashp$). For our algorithmic system (see \Rule{Env$_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathcal{A}}$} in Section~\ref{sec:algorules}) all we need to define is the intersection of a type scheme with a type: 
540
\begin{lemma}[\cite{Frisch2008}]
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
541
542
543
  Let $\ts$ be a type scheme and $t$ a type. We can compute a type scheme, written $t \tsand \ts$, such that
  \(\tsint {t \tsand \ts} = \{s \alt \exists t' \in \tsint \ts.\ t \land t' \leq s \}\)
\end{lemma}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
544
Finally, given a type scheme $\ts$ it is straightforward to choose in its interpretation a type $\tsrep\ts$ which serves as the canonical representative of the set (i.e., $\tsrep \ts \in \tsint \ts$):
545
\begin{definition}[Representative]
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
546
  We define a function $\tsrep {\_}$ that maps every non-empty type scheme into a type, \textit{representative} of the set of types denoted by the scheme.\vspace{-3mm}
547
  \begin{align*}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
548
549
550
    \begin{array}{lcllcl}
    \tsrep t &=& t  &  \tsrep {\ts_1 \tstimes \ts_2} &=& \pair {\tsrep {\ts_1}} {\tsrep {\ts_2}}\\
    \tsrep {\tsfunone {t_i} {s_i}_{i\in I}} &=& \bigwedge_{i\in I} \arrow {t_i} {s_i} \qquad&    \tsrep {\ts_1 \tsor \ts_2} &=& \tsrep {\ts_1} \vee \tsrep {\ts_2}\\
551
552
553
554
    \tsrep \tsempty && \textit{undefined}
    \end{array}
  \end{align*}
\end{definition}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
555

556

Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
557
558


559

Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
bla bla    
Giuseppe Castagna committed
560
\subsubsection{Operators for  type constructors}\label{sec:typeops}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
561
562

In order to define the algorithmic typing of expressions like
563
applications and projections we need to define the operators on
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
types we used in Section~\ref{sec:ideas}. Consider the rule \Rule{App} for applications. It essentially
does three things: $(1)$ it checks that the function has functional
type; $(2)$ it checks that the argument is in the domain of the
function, and $(3)$ it returns the type of the application. In systems
without set-theoretic types these operations are quite
straightforward: $(1)$ corresponds to checking that the function has
an arrow type, $(2)$ corresponds to checking that the argument is in
the domain of the arrow deduced for the function and $(3)$ corresponds
to returning the codomain of that same arrow. With set-theoretic types
things are more difficult since a function can be typed by, say, a
union of intersection of arrows and negations of types. Checking that
the function has a functional type is easy since it corresponds to
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
576
checking that it has a type subtype of $\Empty{\to}\Any$. Determining
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
577
its domain and the type of the application is more complicated and needs the operators $\dom{}$ and $\circ$ that we informally described in Section~\ref{sec:ideas} where we also described the operator $\worra{}{}$. These three operators are used by our algorithm and are formally defined as follows:
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
bla bla    
Giuseppe Castagna committed
578
579
\begin{eqnarray}
\dom t & = & \max \{ u \alt t\leq u\to \Any\} 
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
580
\\[-.8mm]
581
\apply t s & = &\,\min \{ u \alt t\leq s\to u\}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
582
\\[-.8mm]
583
\worra t s  & = &\,\min\{u \alt t\circ(\dom t\setminus u)\leq \neg s\}\label{worra}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
bla bla    
Giuseppe Castagna committed
584
\end{eqnarray}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
%In short, $\dom t$ is the largest domain of any single arrow that
%subsumes $t$, $\apply t s$ is the smallest domain of an arrow type
%that subsumes $t$ and has domain $s$ and $\worra t s$ was explained
%before.
We need similar operators for projections since the type $t$
of $e$ in $\pi_i e$ may not be a single product type but, say, a union
of products: all we know is that $t$ must be a subtype of
$\pair\Any\Any$. So let $t$ be a type such that $t\leq\pair\Any\Any$,
then we define:
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
594
595
596
\begin{equation}
  \begin{array}{lcrlcr}
  \bpl t & = & \min \{ u \alt t\leq \pair u\Any\}\qquad&\qquad
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
bla bla    
Giuseppe Castagna committed
597
  \bpr t & = & \min \{ u \alt t\leq \pair \Any u\}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
598
599
\end{array}
\end{equation}
600
601
602
All the operators above but $\worra{}{}$ are already present in the
theory of semantic subtyping: the reader can find how to compute them
and how to extend their definition to type schemes in~\cite[Section
603
  6.11]{Frisch2008} (see also~\citep[\S4.4]{Cas15} for a detailed description). Below we just show the formula that computes
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
$\worra t s$ for a $t$ subtype of $\Empty\to\Any$. For that, we use a
result of semantic subtyping that states that every type $t$ is
equivalent to a type in disjunctive normal form and that if
furthermore $t\leq\Empty\to\Any$, then $t \simeq \bigvee_{i\in
  I}\left(\bigwedge_{p\in P_i}(s_p\to t_p)\bigwedge_{n\in
  N_i}\neg(s_n'\to t_n')\right)$ with $\bigwedge_{p\in P_i}(s_p\to
t_p)\bigwedge_{n\in N_i}\neg(s_n'\to t_n') \not\simeq \Empty$ for all
$i$ in $I$. For such a $t$ and any type $s$ then we have:
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
612
613
%
\begin{equation}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
614
\worra t s  =  \dom t \wedge\bigvee_{i\in I}\left(\bigwedge_{\{P\subseteq P_i\alt s\leq \bigvee_{p \in P} \neg t_p\}}\left(\bigvee_{p \in P} \neg s_p\right) \right)
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
615
\end{equation}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
The formula considers only the positive arrows of each summand that
forms $t$ and states that, for each summand, whenever you take a subset
$P$ of its positive arrows that cannot yield results in 
$s$ (since $s$ does not overlap the intersection of the codomains of these arrows), then
the success of the test cannot depend on these arrows and therefore
the intersection of the domains of these arrows---i.e., the values that would precisely select that set of arrows---can be removed from $\dom t$.  The proof
that this type satisfies \eqref{worra} is given in the
Appendix~\ref{app:worra}.
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
bla bla    
Giuseppe Castagna committed
624
625
626



627
\subsubsection{Type environments for occurrence typing}\label{sec:typenv}
628

629
630
The last step for our presentation is to define the algorithm for the
deduction of $\Gamma \evdash e t \Gamma'$, that is an algorithm that
631
takes as input $\Gamma$, $e$, and $t$, and returns an environment that
632
extends $\Gamma$ with hypotheses on the occurrences of $e$ that are
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
633
the most general that can be deduced by assuming that $e\in t$ succeeds. For that we need the notation $\tyof{e}{\Gamma}$ which denotes the type scheme deduced for $e$ under the type environment $\Gamma$ in the algorithmic type system of Section~\ref{sec:algorules}.
Mickael Laurent's avatar
Mickael Laurent committed
634
635
That is, $\tyof{e}{\Gamma}=\ts$ if and only if $\Gamma\vdashA e:\ts$ is provable. 

Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
636
We start by defining the algorithm for each single occurrence, that is for the deduction of $\pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi:t'$. This is obtained by defining two mutually recursive functions $\constrf$ and $\env{}{}$:
637
\newlength{\sk}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
638
\setlength{\sk}{-1.5pt}
639
  \begin{eqnarray}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
    \constr\epsilon{\Gamma,e,t} & = & t\label{uno}\\[\sk]
    \constr{\varpi.0}{\Gamma,e,t} & = & \neg(\arrow{\env {\Gamma,e,t}{(\varpi.1)}}{\neg \env {\Gamma,e,t} (\varpi)})\label{due}\\[\sk]
    \constr{\varpi.1}{\Gamma,e,t} & = & \worra{\tsrep {\tyof{\occ e{\varpi.0}}\Gamma}}{\env {\Gamma,e,t} (\varpi)}\label{tre}\\[\sk]
    \constr{\varpi.l}{\Gamma,e,t} & = & \bpl{\env {\Gamma,e,t} (\varpi)}\label{quattro}\\[\sk]
    \constr{\varpi.r}{\Gamma,e,t} & = & \bpr{\env {\Gamma,e,t} (\varpi)}\label{cinque}\\[\sk]
    \constr{\varpi.f}{\Gamma,e,t} & = & \pair{\env {\Gamma,e,t} (\varpi)}\Any\label{sei}\\[\sk]
    \constr{\varpi.s}{\Gamma,e,t} & = & \pair\Any{\env {\Gamma,e,t} (\varpi)}\label{sette}\\[1.5mm]
647
648
    \env {\Gamma,e,t} (\varpi) & = & \constr \varpi {\Gamma,e,t} \land \tsrep {\tyof {\occ e \varpi} \Gamma}\label{otto}
  \end{eqnarray}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
All the functions above are defined if and only if the initial path
$\varpi$ is valid for $e$ (i.e., $\occ e{\varpi}$ is defined) and $e$
is well-typed (which implies that all $\tyof {\occ e{\varpi}} \Gamma$
in the definition are defined).\footnote{Note that the definition is
  well-founded.  This can be seen by analyzing the rule
  \Rule{Case\Aa}: the definition of $\Refine {e,t} \Gamma$ and
  $\Refine {e,\neg t} \Gamma$ use $\tyof{\occ e{\varpi}}\Gamma$, and
  this is defined for all $\varpi$ since the first premisses of
  \Rule{Case\Aa} states that $\Gamma\vdash e:\ts_0$ (and this is
  possible only if we were able to deduce under the hypothesis
  $\Gamma$ the type of every occurrence of $e$.)}
660

Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
661
Each case of the definition of the $\constrf$ function corresponds to the
662
663
664
665
application of a logical rule (\emph{cf.} Footnote~\ref{fo:rules}) in
the deduction system for $\vdashp$: case \eqref{uno} corresponds
to the application of \Rule{PEps}; case \eqref{due} implements \Rule{Pappl}
straightforwardly; the implementation of rule \Rule{PAppR} is subtler:
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
wording    
Giuseppe Castagna committed
666
667
instead of finding the best $t_1$ to subtract (by intersection) from the
static type of the argument, \eqref{tre} finds directly the best type for the argument by
668
applying the $\worra{}{}$ operator to the static types of the function
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
wording    
Giuseppe Castagna committed
669
and the refined type of the application. The remaining (\ref{quattro}--\ref{sette})
670
671
672
673
cases are the straightforward implementations of the rules
\Rule{PPairL}, \Rule{PPairR}, \Rule{PFst}, and \Rule{PSnd},
respectively.

674
The other recursive function, $\env{}{}$, implements the two structural
675
676
rules \Rule{PInter} and \Rule{PTypeof} by intersecting the type
obtained for $\varpi$ by the logical rules, with the static type
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
677
deduced by the type system for the expression occurring at $\varpi$. The
678
remaining structural rule, \Rule{Psubs}, is accounted for by the use
679
of the operators $\worra{}{}$ and $\boldsymbol{\pi}_i$ in
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
680
the definition of $\constrf$.
681

682
It remains to explain how to compute the environment $\Gamma'$ produced from $\Gamma$ by the deduction system for $\Gamma \evdash e t \Gamma'$. Alas, this is the most delicate part of our algorithm.
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
683
%
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
In a nutshell what we want to do is to define a function
$\Refine{\_,\_}{\_}$ that takes a type environment $\Gamma$, an
expression $e$ and a type $t$ and returns the best type environment
$\Gamma'$ such that $\Gamma \evdash e t \Gamma'$ holds. By the best
environment we mean the one in which the occurrences of $e$ are
associated to the largest possible types (type environments are
hypotheses so they are contravariant: the larger the type the better
the hypothesis).  Recall that in Section~\ref{sec:challenges} we said
that we want our analysis to be able to capture all the information
available from nested checks. If we gave up such a kind of precision
694
then the definition of $\Refinef$ would be pretty easy: it must map
695
each subexpression of $e$ to the intersection of the types deduced by
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
696
$\vdashp$ (i.e., by $\env{}{}$) for each of its occurrences. That
697
is, for each expression $e'$ occurring in $e$, $\Refine {e,t}\Gamma$
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
698
would be the type environment that maps $e'$ into $\bigwedge_{\{\varpi \alt
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
  \occ e \varpi \equiv e'\}} \env {\Gamma,e,t} (\varpi)$. As we
explained in Section~\ref{sec:challenges} the intersection is needed
to apply occurrence typing to expression such as
$\tcase{(x,x)}{\pair{t_1}{t_2}}{e_1}{e_2}$ where some
expressions---here $x$---occur multiple times.

In order to capture most of the type information from nested queries
the rule \Rule{Path} allows the deduction of the type of some
occurrence $\varpi$ to use a type environment $\Gamma'$ that may
contain information about some suboccurrences of $\varpi$. On the
709
algorithm this would correspond to apply the $\Refinef$ defined
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
710
above to an environment that already is the result of $\Refinef$, and so on. Therefore, ideally our
711
algorithm should compute the type environment as a fixpoint of the
712
function $X\mapsto\Refine{e,t}{X}$. Unfortunately, an iteration of $\Refinef$ may
713
not converge. As an example consider the (dumb) expression $\tcase
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
714
{x_1x_2}{\Any}{e_1}{e_2}$. If $x_1:\Any\to\Any$, then every iteration of
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
715
$\Refinef$ yields for $x_1$ a type strictly more precise than the type deduced in the
716
717
718
previous iteration.

The solution we adopt here is to bound the  number of iterations to some number $n_o$. 
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
719
From a formal point of view, this means to give up the completeness of the algorithm: $\Refinef$ will be complete (i.e., it will find all solutions) for the deductions of $\Gamma \evdash e t \Gamma'$ of depth at most $n_o$. This is obtained by the following definition of $\Refinef$
720
721
722
723
\[
\begin{array}{rcl}
  \Refinef_{e,t} \eqdef (\RefineStep{e,t})^{n_o}\\
\text{where }\RefineStep {e,t}(\Gamma)(e') &=&  \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
724
725
726
        %\tyof {e'} \Gamma \tsand
        \bigwedge_{\{\varpi \alt \occ e \varpi \equiv e'\}}
        \env {\Gamma,e,t} (\varpi) & \text{if } \exists \varpi.\ \occ e \varpi \equiv e' \\
Mickael Laurent's avatar
Mickael Laurent committed
727
728
        \Gamma(e') & \text{otherwise, if } e'\in\dom\Gamma\\
        \text{undefined} & \text{otherwise}
729
730
731
      \end{array}\right.
\end{array}
\]
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
732
733
Note in particular that $\Refine{e,t}\Gamma$  extends  $\Gamma$ with hypotheses on the expressions occurring in $e$, since
$\dom{\Refine{e,t}\Gamma} = \dom{\RefineStep {e,t}(\Gamma)} = \dom{\Gamma} \cup \{e' \alt \exists \varpi.\ \occ e \varpi \equiv e'\}$.
734
735
736

In other terms, we try to find a fixpoint of $\RefineStep{e,t}$ but we
bound our search to $n_o$ iterations. Since $\RefineStep {e,t}$ is
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
737
738
monotone (w.r.t.\ the subtyping pre-order extended to type environments pointwise), then
  every iteration yields a better solution. 
739
740
741
742
743

While this is unsatisfactory from a formal point of view, in practice
the problem is a very mild one. Divergence may happen only when
refining the type of a function in an application: not only such a
refinement is meaningful only when the function is typed by a union
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
744
type (which is quite rare in practice)\footnote{\label{foo:typecase}The only impact of
745
746
747
748
749
  adding a negated arrow type to the type of a function is when we
  test whether the function has a given arrow type: in practice this
  never happens since programming languages test whether a value
  \emph{is} a function, rather than the type of a given function.},
but also we had to build the expression that causes the divergence in
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
750
quite an \emph{ad hoc} way which makes divergence even more unlikely: setting
751
an $n_o$ twice the depth of the syntax tree of the outermost type case
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
752
753
should be enough to capture all realistic cases \beppe{can we give an estimate
  based on benchmarking the prototype?}
754

Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
bla bla    
Giuseppe Castagna committed
755
756
757



Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
758
\subsubsection{Algorithmic typing rules}\label{sec:algorules}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
759
We now have all the notions we need for our typing algorithm, which is defined by the following rules.
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
760
\begin{mathpar}
761
  \Infer[Efq\Aa]
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
762
763
764
  { }
  { \Gamma, (e:\Empty) \vdashA e': \Empty }
  { \begin{array}{c}\text{\tiny with priority over}\\[-1.8mm]\text{\tiny all the other rules}\end{array}}
Mickael Laurent's avatar
Mickael Laurent committed
765
766
767
768
769
  \qquad
  \Infer[Var\Aa]
      { }
      { \Gamma \vdashA x: \Gamma(x) }
      { x\in\dom\Gamma}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
770
  \\
771
  \Infer[Env\Aa]
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
772
773
      { \Gamma\setminus\{e\} \vdashA e : \ts }
      { \Gamma \vdashA e: \Gamma(e) \tsand \ts }
774
      { \begin{array}{c}e\in\dom\Gamma \text{ and }\\[-1mm] e \text{ not a variable}\end{array}}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
775
  \qquad
776
  \Infer[Const\Aa]
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
777
778
779
780
      { }
      {\Gamma\vdashA c:\basic{c}}
      {c\not\in\dom\Gamma}
   \\
781
  \Infer[Abs\Aa]
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
782
783
784
785
786
787
      {\Gamma,x:s_i\vdashA e:\ts_i'\\ \ts_i'\leq t_i}
      {
      \Gamma\vdashA\lambda^{\wedge_{i\in I}\arrow {s_i} {t_i}}x.e:\textstyle\tsfun {\arrow {s_i} {t_i}}_{i\in I}
      }
      {\lambda^{\wedge_{i\in I}\arrow {s_i} {t_i}}x.e\not\in\dom\Gamma}
      \\
788
  \Infer[App\Aa]
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
      {
        \Gamma \vdashA e_1: \ts_1\\
        \Gamma \vdashA e_2: \ts_2\\
        \ts_1 \leq \arrow \Empty \Any\\
        \ts_2 \leq \dom {\ts_1}
      }
      { \Gamma \vdashA {e_1}{e_2}: \ts_1 \circ \ts_2 }
      { {e_1}{e_2}\not\in\dom\Gamma}
      \\
798
  \Infer[Case\Aa]
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
        {\Gamma\vdashA e:\ts_0\\
        %\makebox{$\begin{array}{l}
        %  \left\{
        %    \begin{array}{ll} %\Gamma,
        %    \Refine + {e,t} \Gamma \vdashA e_1 : \ts_1 & \text{ if } \ts_0 \not\leq \neg t\\
        %    \ts_1 = \Empty & \text{ otherwise}
        %  \end{array}\right.\\
        %  \left\{
        %    \begin{array}{ll} %\Gamma,
        %    \Refine - {e,t} \Gamma \vdashA e_2 : \ts_2 & \text{ if } \ts_0 \not\leq t\\
        %    \ts_2 = \Empty & \text{ otherwise}
        %  \end{array}\right.
        %\end{array}$}
812
813
        \Refine {e,t} \Gamma \vdashA e_1 : \ts_1\\
        \Refine {e,\neg t} \Gamma \vdashA e_2 : \ts_2}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
814
        {\Gamma\vdashA \tcase {e} t {e_1}{e_2}: \ts_1\tsor \ts_2}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
815
        %{\ite {e} t {e_1}{e_2}\not\in\dom\Gamma}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
816
        { \tcase {e} {t\!} {\!e_1\!}{\!e_2}\not\in\dom\Gamma}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
817
  \\
818
  \Infer[Proj\Aa]
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
819
  {\Gamma \vdashA e:\ts\and \!\!\ts\leq\pair{\Any\!}{\!\Any}}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
820
  {\Gamma \vdashA \pi_i e:\bpi_{\mathbf{i}}(\ts)}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
821
  {\pi_i e{\not\in}\dom\Gamma}\hfill
822
  \Infer[Pair\Aa]
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
823
  {\Gamma \vdashA e_1:\ts_1 \and \!\!\Gamma \vdashA e_2:\ts_2}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
824
  {\Gamma \vdashA (e_1,e_2):{\ts_1}\tstimes{\ts_2}}%\pair{t_1}{t_2}}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
825
  {(e_1,e_2){\not\in}\dom\Gamma}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
826
\end{mathpar}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
827
828
829
The side conditions of the rules ensure that the system is syntax
directed, that is, that at most one rule applies when typing a term:
priority is given to \Rule{Eqf\Aa} over all the other rules and to
830
\Rule{Env\Aa} over all remaining logical rules. Type schemes are
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
831
used to account the type-multiplicity stemming from
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
832
833
$\lambda$-abstractions as shown in particular by rule \Rule{Abs\Aa}
(in what follows we use the word ``type'' also for type schemes). The
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
834
subsumption rule is no longer in the system; it is replaced by: $(i)$
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
835
using a union type in \Rule{Case\Aa}, $(ii)$ checking in \Rule{Abs\Aa}
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
that the body of the function is typed by a subtype of the type
declared in the annotation, and $(iii)$ using type operators and
checking subtyping in the elimination rules \Rule{App\Aa,Proj\Aa}. In
particular, for \Rule{App\Aa} notice that it checks that the type of
the function is a functional type, that the type of the argument is a
subtype of the domain of the function, and then returns the result
type of the application of the two types. The intersection rule is
replaced by the use of type schemes in \Rule{Abs\Aa} and by the rule
\Rule{Env\Aa}. The latter intersects the type deduced for an
expression $e$ by occurrence typing and stored in $\Gamma$ with the
type deduced for $e$ by the logical rules: this is simply obtained by
removing any hypothesis about $e$ from $\Gamma$, so that the deduction
of the type $\ts$ for $e$ cannot but end by a logical rule. Of course
this does not apply when the expression $e$ is a variable, since
an hypothesis in $\Gamma$ is the only way to deduce the type of a
variable, which is a why the algorithm reintroduces the classic rules
for variables.
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
853
854
855

The system above satisfies the following properties:\beppe{State here
  soundness and partial completeness}
856
   
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869

The use of type schemes and the possible non convergence of iterations
yield a system that may seem overly complicated. But it is important
to stress that this systems is defined only to study the declarative
type inference system of Section~\ref{sec:static} and in particular to prod
how close we can get to a complete algorithm to it. But for the
practical application type schemes are not needed, since they are
necessary only when type cases may specify types with negative arrows
and this in practice never happens: see Footnote
\ref{foo:typecase}. This is why for our implementation we use the
CDuce library in which type schemes are absent and functiond are typed
only by intersections of positive arrows. We present the implementation in Section~\ref{sec:practical}
but before let us study some extensions.