language.tex 22.7 KB
Newer Older
1
\newlength{\sk}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
space    
Giuseppe Castagna committed
2
\setlength{\sk}{-1.9pt}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
3
\iflongversion
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
4
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. 
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
5
\fi
6
7

\subsection{Types}
8
9
10
\begin{definition}[Types]\label{def:types}
%\iflongversion%%%%%%%
The set of types \types{} is formed by the terms $t$ coinductively produced by the grammar:\vspace{-1.45mm}
11
12
13
14
15
\[
\begin{array}{lrcl}
\textbf{Types} & t & ::= & b\alt t\to t\alt t\times t\alt t\vee t \alt \neg t \alt \Empty 
\end{array}
\]
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
16
17
and that satisfy the following conditions
\begin{itemize}[nosep]
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
18
19
\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
20
arrow or product type constructors.\vspace{-1mm}
21
\end{itemize}
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
\iffalse%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
A type $t\in\types{}$ is a term coinductively produced by the grammar:\vspace{-1.45mm}
\[
\begin{array}{lrcl}
\textbf{Types} & t & ::= & b\alt t\to t\alt t\times t\alt t\vee t \alt \neg t \alt \Empty 
\end{array}
\]
that satisfies the following conditions: $(1)$\emph{Regularity}: the
term has a finite number of different sub-terms; $(2)$ \emph{Contractivity}: every infinite branch of the term contains an infinite number of occurrences of the
arrow or product type constructors.\vspace{-1mm}
\fi%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
33
\end{definition}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
34
We use the following abbreviations: $
35
36
    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
37
$b$ ranges over basic types
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
38
(e.g., \Int, \Bool),
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
$\Empty$ 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). 
46
\iflongversion%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
47
It also ensures that the binary relation $\vartriangleright
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
typos    
Giuseppe Castagna committed
48
\,\subseteq\!\types{\times}\types$ defined by $t_1 \lor t_2 \vartriangleright
49
t_i$, $t_1 \land t_2 \vartriangleright
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
50
t_i$, $\neg t \vartriangleright t$ is Noetherian.
51
This gives an induction principle on $\types$ that we
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
52
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.} 
53
\fi%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
54
55
56
57
58
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
59
by~\citet{Frisch2008} to which the reader may refer for the formal
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
typos    
Giuseppe Castagna committed
60
definition (see~\citet{types18post} for a simpler alternative
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
61
definition that we recall in Appendix~\ref{sec:subtyping} for the
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
typos    
Giuseppe Castagna committed
62
63
reader's convenience). A detailed description of the algorithm to
decide this relation can be found in~\cite{Cas15}.
64
For this presentation it suffices to consider that
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
65
types are interpreted as sets of \emph{values} ({i.e., either
Victor Lanvin's avatar
Fixes    
Victor Lanvin committed
66
constants, $\lambda$-abstractions, or pairs of values: see
67
Section~\ref{sec:syntax} right below) that have that type, and that subtyping is set
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
68
containment (i.e., a type $s$ is a subtype of a type $t$ if and only if $t$
69
70
contains all the values of type $s$). In particular, $s\to t$
contains all $\lambda$-abstractions that when applied to a value of
71
type $s$, if their computation terminates, then they return a result of
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
72
type $t$ (e.g., $\Empty\to\Any$ is the set of all
73
74
75
76
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
77
78
(i.e., union, intersection, negation) are interpreted as the
corresponding set-theoretic operators (e.g.,~$s\vee t$ is the
79
union of the values of the two types). We use $\simeq$ to denote the
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
80
symmetric closure of $\leq$: thus $s\simeq t$ (read, $s$ is equivalent to $t$) means that $s$ and $t$ denote the same set of values and, as such, they are semantically the same type.
81
82

\subsection{Syntax}\label{sec:syntax}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
83
The expressions $e$ and values $v$ of our language are inductively generated by the following grammars:\vspace{-1mm}
84
\begin{equation}\label{expressions}
85
\begin{array}{lrclr}  
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
86
87
  \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}\\[.3mm]
  \textbf{Values} &v &::=& c\alt\lambda^{\wedge_{i\in I}s_i\to t_i} x.e\alt (v,v)\\[-1mm]
88
89
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
wording    
Giuseppe Castagna committed
90
for $j=1,2$. In~\eqref{expressions}, $c$ ranges over constants
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
91
(e.g., \texttt{true}, \texttt{false}, \texttt{1}, \texttt{2},
92
93
...) which are values of basic types (we use $\basic{c}$ to denote the
basic type of the constant $c$); $x$ ranges over variables; $(e,e)$
Kim Nguyễn's avatar
typos.    
Kim Nguyễn committed
94
denotes pairs and $\pi_i e$ their projections; $\tcase{e}{t}{e_1}{e_2}$
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
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 $s_i\to
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
typos    
Giuseppe Castagna committed
105
t_i$ for all $i\in I$. Every value is associated to a most specific type (mst): the mst of $c$ is $\basic c$; the mst of
106
 $\lambda^{\wedge_{i\in I}s_i\to t_i} x.e$ is $\wedge_{i\in I}s_i\to t_i$; and, inductively,
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
107
108
the mst of a pair of values is the product of the mst's of the
values. We write $v\in t$ if the most specific type of $v$ is a subtype of $t$ (see Appendix~\ref{app:typeschemes} for the formal definition of $v\in t$ which  deals with some corner cases for negated arrow types).
109
110
111



112
\subsection{Dynamic semantics}\label{sec:opsem}
113

Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
114
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:\vspace{-1.2mm}
115
116
\[
\begin{array}{rcll}
Kim Nguyễn's avatar
Kim Nguyễn committed
117
  (\lambda^{\wedge_{i\in I}s_i\to t_i} x.e)\,v &\reduces& e\subst x v\\[-.4mm]
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
118
119
  \pi_i(v_1,v_2) &\reduces& v_i & i=1,2\\[-.4mm]
  \tcase{v}{t}{e_1}{e_2} &\reduces& e_1 &v\in t\\[-.4mm] 
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
120
  \tcase{v}{t}{e_1}{e_2} &\reduces& e_2 &v\not\in t\\[-1.3mm]
121
122
\end{array}
\]
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
123
Contextual reductions are
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
124
125
126
defined by the following evaluation contexts:\\[1mm]
\centerline{\(
%\[
127
\Cx[] ::= [\,]\alt \Cx e\alt v\Cx \alt (\Cx,e)\alt (v,\Cx)\alt \pi_i\Cx\alt \tcase{\Cx}tee
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
128
129
%\]
\)}\\[1mm]
130
131
132
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
$\Cx[e]\reduces\Cx[e']$.
133

Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
134
\subsection{Static semantics}\label{sec:static}
135

136
While the syntax and reduction semantics are, on the whole, pretty
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
bla    
Giuseppe Castagna committed
137
standard, for what concerns the type system we will have to introduce several
138
unconventional features that we anticipated in
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
139
Section~\ref{sec:challenges} and are at the core of our work. Let
140
us start with the standard part, that is the typing of the functional
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
141
core and the use of subtyping, given by the following typing rules:\vspace{-1mm}
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
\begin{mathpar}
  \Infer[Const]
      { }
      {\Gamma\vdash c:\basic{c}}
      { }
  \quad
  \Infer[App]
      {
150
        \Gamma \vdash e_1: \arrow {t_1}{t_2}\quad
151
152
153
154
155
156
        \Gamma \vdash e_2: t_1
      }
      { \Gamma \vdash {e_1}{e_2}: t_2 }
      { }
  \quad
  \Infer[Abs+]
157
      {{\scriptstyle\forall i\in I}\quad\Gamma,x:s_i\vdash e:t_i}
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
      {
      \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
170
\end{mathpar}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
171
\begin{mathpar}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
172
      \Infer[Sel]
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
  {\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' }
      { }
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
186
  \qquad\vspace{-3mm}
187
\end{mathpar}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
188
These rules are quite standard and do not need any particular explanation besides those already given in Section~\ref{sec:syntax}. Just notice subtyping is embedded in the system by the classic \Rule{Subs} subsumption rule. Next we focus on the unconventional aspects of our system, from the simplest to the hardest.
189

Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
190
The first unconventional aspect is that, as explained in
191
Section~\ref{sec:challenges}, our type assumptions are about
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
192
expressions. Therefore, in our rules the type environments, ranged over
193
by $\Gamma$, map \emph{expressions}---rather than just variables---into
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
194
types. This explains why the classic typing rule for variables is replaced by a more general \Rule{Env} rule defined below:\vspace{-1mm}
195
196
197
198
199
200
\begin{mathpar}
  \Infer[Env]
      { }
      { \Gamma \vdash e: \Gamma(e) }
      { e\in\dom\Gamma }
  \qquad
201
  \Infer[Inter]
202
203
      { \Gamma \vdash e:t_1\\\Gamma \vdash e:t_2 }
      { \Gamma \vdash e: t_1 \wedge t_2 }
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
204
      { }\vspace{-3mm}
205
\end{mathpar}
206
The \Rule{Env} rule is coupled with the standard intersection introduction rule \Rule{Inter}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
207
which allows us to deduce for a complex expression the intersection of
208
209
210
211
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
212
system, that is, the fact that $\lambda$-abstractions can have negated
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
213
arrow types, as long as these negated types do not make the type deduced for the function empty:\vspace{-.5mm}
214
215
\begin{mathpar}
  \Infer[Abs-]
Mickael Laurent's avatar
Mickael Laurent committed
216
217
    {\Gamma \vdash \lambda^{\wedge_{i\in I}\arrow {s_i} {t_i}}x.e:t}
    { \Gamma \vdash\lambda^{\wedge_{i\in I}\arrow {s_i} {t_i}}x.e:\neg(t_1\to t_2)  }
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
spacing    
Giuseppe Castagna committed
218
    { ((\wedge_{i\in I}\arrow {s_i} {t_i})\wedge\neg(t_1\to t_2))\not\simeq\Empty }\vspace{-1.2mm}
219
\end{mathpar}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
%\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.}
227
As explained in Section~\ref{sec:challenges}, we need to be able to
228
229
230
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
231
232
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+}
233
234
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
typos    
Giuseppe Castagna committed
235
of deduction is already present in the system by~\citet{Frisch2008}
Kim Nguyễn's avatar
typo.    
Kim Nguyễn committed
236
though in that system this presence was motivated by the semantics of types rather than, as in our case,
237
238
239
240
241
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
242
instance, consider this simple example of a function that applied to an
243
integer returns its successor and applied to anything else returns
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
244
245
246
\textsf{true}:\\[1mm]
\centerline{\(
%\[
247
\lambda^{(\Int\to\Int)\wedge(\neg\Int\to\Bool)} x\,.\,\tcase{x}{\Int}{x+1}{\textsf{true}}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
248
%\]
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
spacing    
Giuseppe Castagna committed
249
\)}\\[.6mm]
250
Clearly, the expression above is well typed, but the rule \Rule{Abs+} alone
251
is not enough to type it. In particular, according to \Rule{Abs+} we
252
have to prove that under the hypothesis that $x$ is of type $\Int$ the expression
253
$(\tcase{x}{\Int}{x+1}{\textsf{true}})$ is of type $\Int$, too.  That is, that under the
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
254
hypothesis that $x$ has type $\Int\wedge\Int$ (we apply occurrence
255
typing) the expression $x+1$ is of type \Int{} (which holds) and that under the
256
hypothesis that $x$ has type $\Int\setminus\Int$, that is $\Empty$
257
258
(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
259
second case of a type-case even if we know that there is no chance that, when $x$ is bound to an integer,
260
261
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
262
avoid this problem (and type the term above) we add the rule
263
264
265
\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:
266
267
268
269
\begin{mathpar}
  \Infer[Efq]
  { }
  { \Gamma, (e:\Empty) \vdash e': t }
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
270
  { }\vspace{-3mm}
271
\end{mathpar}
272
273
Once more, this kind of deduction was already present in the system
by~\citet{Frisch2008} to type full fledged overloaded functions,
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
typos    
Giuseppe Castagna committed
274
though it was embedded in the typing rule for the type-case.
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
275
Here we
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
276
need the rule \Rule{Efq}, which is more general, to ensure the
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
277
278
property of subject reduction.
%\beppe{Example?}
279

Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
280
Finally, there remains one last rule in our type system, the one that
281
implements occurrence typing, that is, the rule for the
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
282
type-case:\vspace{-1mm}
283
284
285
286
\begin{mathpar}
    \Infer[Case]
        {\Gamma\vdash e:t_0\\
        %t_0\not\leq \neg t \Rightarrow
287
        \Gamma \evdash e t \Gamma_1 \\ \Gamma_1 \vdash e_1:t'\\
288
        %t_0\not\leq t \Rightarrow
289
        \Gamma \evdash e {\neg t} \Gamma_2 \\ \Gamma_2 \vdash e_2:t'}
290
        {\Gamma\vdash \tcase {e} t {e_1}{e_2}: t'}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
291
        { }\vspace{-3mm}
292
\end{mathpar}
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
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.
305

306
All it remains to do is to show how to deduce judgments of the form
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
307
$\Gamma \evdash e t \Gamma'$. For that we first define how
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
308
309
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
310
311
312
313
314
315
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
Kim Nguyễn's avatar
Kim Nguyễn committed
316
the path $\varpi$, that is (for $i=0,1$, and undefined otherwise)\vspace{-.4mm}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
%% \[
%% \begin{array}{l}
%% \begin{array}{r@{\downarrow}l@{\quad=\quad}l}
%% e&\epsilon & e\\
%% e_0e_1& i.\varpi & \occ{e_i}\varpi\qquad i=0,1\\
%% (e_0,e_1)& l.\varpi & \occ{e_0}\varpi\\
%% (e_0,e_1)& r.\varpi & \occ{e_1}\varpi\\
%% \pi_1 e& f.\varpi & \occ{e}\varpi\\
%% \pi_2 e& s.\varpi & \occ{e}\varpi\\
%% \end{array}\\
%% \text{undefined otherwise}
%% \end{array}
%% \]
330
\[
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
331
\begin{array}{r@{\downarrow}l@{\quad=\quad}lr@{\downarrow}l@{\quad=\quad}lr@{\downarrow}l@{\quad=\quad}l}
Kim Nguyễn's avatar
Kim Nguyễn committed
332
333
e&\epsilon & e & (e_1,e_2)& l.\varpi & \occ{e_1}\varpi &\pi_1 e& f.\varpi & \occ{e}\varpi\\
e_0\,e_1& i.\varpi & \occ{e_i}\varpi \quad\qquad& (e_1,e_2)& r.\varpi & \occ{e_2}\varpi \quad\qquad&
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
spaces    
Giuseppe Castagna committed
334
\pi_2 e& s.\varpi & \occ{e}\varpi\\[-.4mm]
335
336
337
338
\end{array}
\]
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
339
application, $l$ and $r$ for the $l$eft and $r$ight expressions forming a pair,
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
340
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
341
under $\lambda$'s (since their type is frozen in their annotations) and type-cases (since they reset the analysis).
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
space    
Giuseppe Castagna committed
342
343
%
The judgments  $\Gamma \evdash e t \Gamma'$ are then deduced by the following two rules:\vspace{-1mm} \begin{mathpar}
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
%        \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]
      { }
355
      { \Gamma \evdash e t \Gamma }
356
357
358
      { }
    \qquad
    \Infer[Path]
359
360
      { \pvdash {\Gamma'} e t \varpi:t' \\ \Gamma \evdash e t \Gamma' }
      { \Gamma \evdash e t \Gamma',(\occ e \varpi:t') }
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
space    
Giuseppe Castagna committed
361
      { }\vspace{-1.5mm}
362
\end{mathpar}
363
364
365
366
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
367
occurrence $\varpi$ of the expression $e$ being checked, then we can add this
368
hypothesis to the produced type environment (rule \Rule{Path}). The rule
369
\Rule{Path} uses a (last) auxiliary judgement $\pvdash {\Gamma}  e t
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
370
\varpi:t'$ to deduce the type $t'$ of the occurrence $\occ e \varpi$ when
371
372
373
374
375
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
376
judgements of the form $\pvdash {\Gamma}  e t \varpi:t'$ where
377
$\varpi$ is a path to an expression occurring in $e$. This is given by the following set
378
379
380
of rules.
\begin{mathpar}
    \Infer[PSubs]
381
382
        { \pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi:t_1 \\ t_1\leq t_2 }
        { \pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi:t_2 }
383
        { }
384
        \quad
385
    \Infer[PInter]
386
387
        { \pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi:t_1 \\ \pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi:t_2 }
        { \pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi:t_1\land t_2 }
388
        { }
389
        \quad
390
391
    \Infer[PTypeof]
        { \Gamma \vdash \occ e \varpi:t' }
392
        { \pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi:t' }
393
        { }
394
\vspace{-1.2mm}\\
395
    \Infer[PEps]
396
        { }
397
        { \pvdash \Gamma e t \epsilon:t }
398
399
400
        { }
        \qquad
    \Infer[PAppR]
401
402
        { \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 }
403
        { t_2\land t_2' \simeq \Empty  }
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
404
\end{mathpar}\begin{mathpar}\vspace{-2mm}
405
    \Infer[PAppL]
406
407
        { \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}) }
408
409
410
        { }
        \qquad
    \Infer[PPairL]
411
412
        { \pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi:\pair{t_1}{t_2} }
        { \pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi.l:t_1 }
413
        { }
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
space    
Giuseppe Castagna committed
414
\vspace{-1.2mm}\\
415
    \Infer[PPairR]
416
417
        { \pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi:\pair{t_1}{t_2} }
        { \pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi.r:t_2 }
418
419
420
        { }
        \qquad
    \Infer[PFst]
421
422
        { \pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi:t' }
        { \pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi.f:\pair {t'} \Any }
423
424
425
        { }
        \qquad
    \Infer[PSnd]
426
427
        { \pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi:t' }
        { \pvdash \Gamma e t \varpi.s:\pair \Any {t'} }
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
428
        { }\vspace{-0.9mm}
429
\end{mathpar}
430
431
432
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
433
the deduction $\vdashp$. The rule \Rule{PInter} combined with
434
435
\Rule{PTypeof} allows the system to deduce for an occurrence $\varpi$
the intersection of the static type of $\occ e \varpi$ (deduced by
436
\Rule{PTypeof}) with the type deduced for $\varpi$ by the other $\vdashp$ rules. The
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
437
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.,
438
$\occ e\epsilon$) has type $t$ (recall that assuming that the test $e\in t$ fails corresponds to having $\neg t$ at the index of the turnstyle).
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
439
The rule \Rule{PAppR} implements occurrence typing for
440
441
442
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 $t_2$
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
443
(since $t_2\land t_2' \simeq \Empty$), then the argument of this application cannot be of type $t_1$. \Rule{PAppL} performs the
444
445
446
447
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\_}
448
are straightforward since they state that the $i$-th projection of a pair
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
449
that is of type $\pair{t_1}{t_2}$ must be of type $t_i$. So are the last two
450
451
452
453
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, $\pair\Any{t'}$).

Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
typos    
Giuseppe Castagna committed
454
455
This concludes the presentation of all the rules of our type system
(they are summarized for the reader's convenience in Appendix~\ref{sec:declarative}), which satisfies
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
456
the property of safety, deduced, as customary, from the properties
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
457
of progress and subject reduction (\emph{cf.} Appendix~\ref{app:soundness}).\vspace{-.5mm}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
458
\begin{theorem}[type safety]
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
459
460
461
For every expression $e$ such that $\varnothing\vdash e:t$ either  $e$
diverges or there
exists a value $v$ of type $t$ such that $e\reduces^* v$.
462
\end{theorem}
Giuseppe Castagna's avatar
Giuseppe Castagna committed
463
\vspace{-2.1mm}
464
465
466
467