practical.tex 10.1 KB
Newer Older
Kim Nguyễn's avatar
Kim Nguyễn committed
1
We have implemented a simplified version of the algorithm presented in
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
2
3
4
5
6
Section~\ref{ssec:algorithm} that does
not make use of type schemes and is, therefore, incomplete w.r.t. the
system of Section~\ref{sec:static}. In particular, as we
explained in Section~\ref{ssec:algorithm}, in the absence of type
schemes it is not always possible to prove that $\forall v, \forall t,
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
typos    
Giuseppe Castagna committed
7
8
v \in t \text{~or~} v \not\in \lnot t$. Since this property cease
to hold only for $\lambda$-expressions, then not using type schemes 
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
yields less precise typing only for tests $\ifty{e}t{e_1}{e_2}$ where $e$
has a functional type, that is the value tested will be a $\lambda$
abstraction This seems like a reasonable compromise between the
complexity of an implementation involving type scheme and the programs
we want to type-check in practice. Indeed if we restrict the language
so that the only functional type $t$ allowed in $\ifty{e}t{e_1}{e_2}$
is $\Empty\to\Any$---i.e., we allow to check whether a value is a
function but not whether it has a specific function type (\emph{cf.}, Footnote~\ref{foo:typecase})---, then our
implementation becomes complete.
18

Kim Nguyễn's avatar
Kim Nguyễn committed
19
Our implementation is written in OCaml and uses CDuce as a library to
20
provide the semantic sub-typing machinery. Besides a type-checking
Kim Nguyễn's avatar
Kim Nguyễn committed
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
algorithm defined on the base language, our implementation supports
record types (Section \ref{ssec:struct}) and the refinement of function types
(Section \ref{sec:refining}). The implementation is rather crude and
consits of 2000 lines of OCaml code, including parsing, type-checking
of programs and pretty printing of types. We demonstrate the output of
our type-checking implementation in Table~\ref{tab:implem}.
\input{code_table}
In this table, the second column gives a code fragment and third
column the type deduced by our implementation. Code~1 is a
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
30
31
straightforward function similar to our introductory example \code{foo} in (\ref{foo},\ref{foo2}). Here the
programmer annotates the parameter of the function with a coarse type
32
$\Int\vee\Bool$. Our implementation first type-checks the body of the
Kim Nguyễn's avatar
Kim Nguyễn committed
33
function under this assumption, but doing so collects that the type of
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
34
35
36
37
38
$\texttt{x}$ is specialized to \Int{} in the ``then'' case and to \Bool{}
in the ``else'' case. The function is thus type-checked twice more
under each hypothesis for \texttt{x}, yielding the precise type
$(\Int\to\Int)\land(\Bool\to\Bool)$. Note that w.r.t.\  rule \Rule{AbsInf+} of Section~\ref{sec:refining}, we improved the output of the computed
type. Indeed using rule~[{\sc AbsInf}+] we would obtain the
Kim Nguyễn's avatar
Kim Nguyễn committed
39
40
type
$(\Int\to\Int)\land(\Bool\to\Bool)\land(\Bool\vee\Int\to\Bool\vee\Int)$
41
42
43
44
with a redundant arrow. Here we can see that since we deduced
the first two arrows $(\Int\to\Int)\land(\Bool\to\Bool)$, and since
the union of their domain exactly covers the domain the third arrow,
the latter is not needed. Code~2 shows what happens when the argument
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
45
46
of the function is left unannotated (i.e., it is annotated by the top
type \Any, written \texttt{Any} in our implementation). Here 
47
48
type-checking and refinement also work as expected, but the function
only type checks if all cases for \texttt{x} are covered (which means
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
49
50
that the function must handle the case of inputs that are neither in \Int{}
nor in \Bool).
51
52
53
54

The following examples paint a more interesting picture. First
(Code~3) it is
easy in our formalism to provide type predicates such as those
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
55
hard-coded in the $\lambda_{\textit{TR}}$ language of \citet{THF10}. Such type
56
57
predicates, which return \texttt{true} if and only if their input has
a particular type, are just plain functions with an intersection
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
58
59
type. We then define Boolean connectives as overloaded
functions. The \texttt{not\_} connective (Code~4) just tests whether its
60
argument is the Boolean \texttt{true} by testing that it belongs to
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
61
62
63
64
65
the singleton type \True{} (the type whose only value is \texttt{true}) returning \texttt{true} for any other value (recall that $\neg\True$ is equivalent to $\texttt{Any\textbackslash}\True$). It works on values of any type, but we could restrict it to Boolean values simply annotating the parameter by \Bool{} (which in CDuce is syntactic sugar for \True$\vee$\False) yielding the type $(\True\to\False)\wedge(\False\to\True)$.
The \texttt{or\_} connective (Code~5) is defined as a
curried function, that first type cases on its argument. Depending
on this first type it may return either a constant function that returns
\texttt{true} for every input, or, a function that
66
67
discriminates on its argument (which is the second argument of the
\texttt{or\_}) and returns \texttt{true} or \texttt{false}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
68
69
70
71
accordingly. Again we use a generalized version of the
\texttt{or\_} connective that accepts and treats any value that is not
\texttt{true} as \texttt{false} and again, we could restrict the initial
domain to \Bool{} if we want.
72

Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
73
To showcase the power of our type system, and in particular of
74
the ``$\worra{}{}$''
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
75
type operator, we define \texttt{and\_} (Code~6) using De Morgan's
76
Laws instead of
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
77
using a direct definition. Here the application of the outermost \texttt{not\_} operator is checked against type \True. This
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
allows the system to deduce that the whole \texttt{or\_} application
has type \False, which in turn leads to \texttt{not\_ x} and
\texttt{not\_ y} to have type $\lnot \True$ and therefore \texttt{x}
and \texttt{y} to have type \True. The whole function is typed with
the most precise type (we present the type as printed by our
implementation, but the first arrow of the resulting type is
equivalent to
$(\True\to\lnot\True\to\False)\land(\True\to\True\to\True)$).

Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
87
All these type predicates and Boolean connectives can be used together
88
89
90
to write complex type tests, as in Code~7. Here we define a function
\texttt{f} that takes two arguments \texttt{x} and \texttt{y}. If
\texttt{x} is an integer and \texttt{y} a Boolean, then it returns the
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
91
92
integer \texttt{1}; if \texttt{x} is a character or
\texttt{y} is an integer, then it returns \texttt{2}; otherwise the
93
function returns \texttt{3}. Our system correctly deduces a (complex)
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
94
95
intersection type that covers all cases (plus several redundant arrow
types). That this type is as precise as possible can be shown by the fact that
96
when applying
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
97
98
\texttt{f} to arguments of the expected type, the \emph{type} deduced for the
whole expression is the singleton type \texttt{1}, or \texttt{2},
99
100
101
or \texttt{3}, depending on the type of the arguments.

Code~8 allows us to demonstrate the use and typing of record paths. We
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
102
model, using open records, the type of DOM objects that represent XML
103
or HTML documents. Such objects possess a common field
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
104
105
\texttt{nodeType} containing an integer constant denoting the kind of
the node (e.g., \p{9} for the root element, \p{1} for an element node, \p{3} for a text node, \ldots). Depending on the kind, the object will have
106
107
108
109
different fields and methods. It is common practice to perform a test
on the value of the \texttt{nodeType} field. In dynamic languages such
as JavaScript, the relevant field or method can directly be accessed
after having checked for the appropriate \texttt{nodeType}. In
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
110
mainstream statically typed languages, such as Java, a downward cast
111
from the generic \texttt{Node} type to the expected precise type of
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
112
the object is needed. We can see that using the extension presented in
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
Section~\ref{ssec:struct} we can deduce the correct type for
\texttt{x} in all cases. Of particular interest is the last case,
since we use a type case to check the emptiness of the list of child
nodes. This splits, at the type level, the case for the \Keyw{Element}
type depending on whether the content of the \texttt{childNodes} field
is the empty list or not.

Our implementation features one last improvement that allows us
further improve the precision of the inferred type.
Consider the definition of the \texttt{xor\_} operator (Code~9).
Here the rule~[{\sc AbsInf}+] is not sufficient to precisely type the
function, and using only this rule would yield a type
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
125
 $\Any\to\Any\to\Bool$. Let us follow the behaviour of the
126
127
 ``$\worra{}{}$'' operator. Here the whole \texttt{and\_} is requested
 to have type \True, which implies that \texttt{or\_ x y} must have
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
128
 type \True. This can always happen, whether \texttt{x} is \True{} or
129
130
 not (but then depends on the type of \texttt{y}). The ``$\worra{}{}$''
 operator correctly computes that the type for \texttt{x} in the
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
131
 ``\texttt{then}'' branch is $\True\vee\lnot\True\lor\True\simeq\Any$,
132
133
and a similar reasoning holds for \texttt{y}. To solve this problem,
we can first remark that even though type cases in the body of a
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
134
135
136
137
function are tipping points that may change the type of the result
of the function, they are not the only ones: applications of overloaded functions play exactly the same role. We
therefore extend deduction system for $\Gamma \vdash e\triangleright\psi$ defined in Section~\ref{sec:refining} with
the following rule\\[1mm]
138
139
140
\centerline{\(
\Infer[OverApp]
    {
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
141
      \Gamma \vdash e : \textstyle\bigvee \bigwedge_{i \in I}t_i\to{}s_i\\
142
143
144
145
      \Gamma \vdash x : t\\
      \Gamma \vdash e\triangleright\psi_1\\
      \Gamma \vdash x\triangleright\psi_2\\
    }
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
146
    { \Gamma \vdash\textstyle
147
148
149
      {e}{~x}\triangleright\psi_1\cup\psi_2\cup\bigcup_{i\in I}\{
      x\mapsto t\wedge t_i\} }
    {}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
150
151
    \)}\\
Whenever a function parameter is the argument of an
152
overloaded function, we record as possible types for this parameter
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
153
154
all the possible domains of the arrows that type the overloaded
function, restricted by the static type of the parameter. In Code~9,
155
156
157
158
since, \texttt{or\_} has type\\
\centerline{$(\True\to\Any\to\True)\land(\Any\to\True\to\True)\land
   (\lnot\True\to\lnot\True\to\False)$}
We consider \True, \Any and $\lnot\True$ as candidate types for
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
159
160
161
162
163
164
\texttt{x} which, in turn allows us to deduce a precise type given in the table. Finally, thanks to this rule it is no longer necessary to force refinement by using a type case. As a consequence we can define the functions \texttt{and\_} and \texttt{or\_} more naturally as:
\begin{alltt}\color{darkblue}
let and_ = fun (x : Any) -> fun (y : Any) -> not_ (or_ (not_ x) (not_ y))
let xor_ = fun (x : Any) -> fun (y : Any) -> and_ (or_ x y) (not_ (and_ x y))
\end{alltt}
for which the very same types as in Table~\ref{tab:implem} are deduced.