research-article

Making "stricterness" more relevant

Authors:

Stefan Holdermans,

Jurriaan HageAuthors Info & Claims

PEPM '10: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM SIGPLAN workshop on Partial evaluation and program manipulation

Pages 121 - 130

https://doi.org/10.1145/1706356.1706379

Published: 18 January 2010 Publication History

Abstract

Adapting a strictness analyser to have it take into account explicit strictness annotations can be a tricky business. Straightforward extensions of analyses based on relevance typing are likely to either be unsafe or fail to pick the fruits of increases in strictness that are introduced through annotations. We propose a more involved adaptation of relevance typing, that can be used to derive strictness analyses that are both safe and effective in the presence of explicit strictness annotations. The resulting type system provides a firm foundation for implementations of type-based strictness analysers in compilers for lazy programming languages such as Haskell and Clean.

References

[1]

Torben Amtoft. Minimal thunkification. In Patrick Cousot, Moreno Falaschi, Gilberto Filé, and Antoine Rauzy, editors, Static Analysis, Third International Workshop, WSA '93, Padova, Italy, September 22-24, 1993, Proceedings, volume 724 of Lecture Notes of Computer Science, pages 218--229. Springer-Verlag, 1993.

Digital Library

[2]

Alan Ross Anderson, Nuel D. Belnap Jr., and J. Michael Dunn. Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity, volume 1. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1975.

[3]

Clement A. Baker-Finch. Relevant logic and strictness analysis. In Michel Billaud, Pierre Castéran, Marc-Michel Corsini, Kaninda Musumbu, and Antoine Rauzy, editors, Actes WSA'92 Workshop on Static Analysis (Bordeaux), 23-25 September 1992, Laboratoire Bordelais de Recherche en Informatique (LaBRI), Proceedings, volume 81-82 of Series Bigre, pages 221--228. Atelier Irisa, 1992.

[4]

Henk P. Barendregt, Richard Kennaway, Jan Willem Klop, and M. Ronan Sleep. Needed reduction and spine strategies for the lambda calculus. Information and Computation, 75(3):191--231, 1987.

Digital Library

[5]

Nick Benton. Strictness Analysis of Lazy Functional Programs. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 1992.

[6]

Geoffrey L. Burn, Chris Hankin, and Samson Abramsky. The theory of strictness analysis for higher order functions. In Harald Ganzinger and Neil D. Jones, editors, Programs as Data Objects, Proceedings of a Workshop, Copenhagen, Denmark, October 17-19, 1985, volume 217 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 42--62. Springer-Verlag, 1986.

Digital Library

[7]

Iliano Cervesato and Frank Pfenning. A linear logical framework. Information and Computation, 179(1):19--75, 2002.

Digital Library

[8]

Mario Coppo, Ferruccio Damiani, and Paola Giannini. Strictness analysis, totality, and non-standard-type inference. Theoretical Computer Science, 272(1-2):69--112, 2002.

Digital Library

[9]

Kei Davis and Philip Wadler. Backwards strictness analysis: Proved and improved. In Kei Davis and John Hughes, editors, Functional Programming, Proceedings of the 1989 Glasgow Workshop, 21-23 August 1989, Fraserburgh, Scotland, UK, Workshops in Computing, pages 12--30. Springer-Verlag, 1990.

Digital Library

[10]

Marko van Eekelen and Maarten de Mol. Proof tool support for explicit strictness. In Andrew Butterfield, Clemens Grelck, and Frank Huch, editors, Implementation and Application of Functional Languages, 17th International Workshop, IFL 2005, Dublin, Ireland, September 19-21, Revised Selected Papers, volume 4015 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 37--54. Springer-Verlag, 2006.

Digital Library

[11]

Andy Gill, John Launchbury, and Simon Peyton Jones. A short cut to deforestation. In FPCA '93 Conference on Functional Programming and Computer Architecture. Copenhagen, Denmark, 9-11 June 1993, pages 223--232. ACM Press, 1993.

Digital Library

[12]

Kevin Glynn, Peter J. Stuckey, and Martin Sulzmann. Effective strictness analysis with HORN constraints. In Patrick Cousot, editor, Static Analysis, 8th International Symposium, SAS 2001, Paris, France, July 16-18, 2001, Proceedings, volume 2126 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 73--92. Springer-Verlag, 2001.

Digital Library

[13]

Jurriaan Hage and Stefan Holdermans. Heap recycling for lazy languages. In John Hatcliff, Robert Glück, and Oege de Moor, editors, Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Partial Evaluation and Semantics-Based Program Manipulation, PEPM'08, San Francisco, California, USA, January 7-8, 2008, pages 189--197. ACM Press, 2008.

Digital Library

[14]

Jurriaan Hage, Stefan Holdermans, and Arie Middelkoop. A generic usage analysis with subeffect qualifiers. In Ralf Hinze and Norman Ramsey, editors, Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming, ICFP 2007, Freiburg, Germany, October 1-3, 2007, pages 235--246. ACM Press, 2007.

Digital Library

[15]

Ralf Hinze. Projection-based Strictness Analysis: Theoretical and Practical Aspects. PhD thesis, Bonn University, 1995.

[16]

Paul Hudak, John Hughes, Simon Peyton Jones, and Philip Wadler. A history of Haskell: Being lazy with class. In Barbara G. Ryder and Brent Hailpern, editors, Proceedings of the Third ACM SIGPLAN History of Programming Languages Conference (HOPL-III), San Diego, California, USA, 9-10 June 2007, pages 1--55. ACM Press, 2007.

Digital Library

[17]

John Hughes. Backwards analysis of functional programs. In Anders Bjørner, Neil D. Jones, and Andrei P. Ershov, editors, Partial Evaluation and Mixed Computation: Proceedings of the IFIP TC2 Workshop, Gammel Avernaes, Denmark, 18-24 Oct., 1987, pages 187--208. North-Holland, 1988.

[18]

John Hughes. Why functional programming matters. The Computer Journal, 32(2):98--107, 1989.

Digital Library

[19]

Thomas P. Jensen. Strictness analysis in logical form. In John Hughes, editor, Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architecture, 5th ACM Conference, Cambridge, MA, USA, August 26-30, 1991, Proceedings, pages 352--366. Springer-Verlag, 1991.

Digital Library

[20]

Thomas P. Jensen. Inference of polymorphic and conditional strictness properties. In POPL '98, Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, January 19-21, 1998, San Diego, CA, USA, pages 209--221. ACM Press, 1998.

Digital Library

[21]

Patricia Johann and Janis Voigtländer. The impact of seq on free theorems-based program transformations. Fundamenta Informaticae, 69(1-2):63--102, 2006.

Digital Library

[22]

Tsung-Min Kuo and Prateek Mishra. Strictness analysis: A new perspective based on type inference. In FPCA '89, Conference on Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architecture, Imperial College, London, England, 11-13 September 1989, pages 260--272. ACM Press, 1989.

Digital Library

[23]

Alan Mycroft. The theory and practice of transforming call-by-need into call-by-value. In Bernard Robinet, editor, International Symposium on Programming, Proceedings of the Fourth 'Colloque International sur la Programmation', Paris, France, 22-24 April 1980, volume 83 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 269--281. Springer-Verlag, 1980.

Digital Library

[24]

Flemming Nielson and Hanne Riis Nielson. Type and effect systems. In Ernst-Rüdiger Olderog and Bernhard Steffen, editors, Correct System Design, Recent Insight and Advances, (to Hans Langmaack on the occasion of his retirement from his professorship at the University of Kiel), volume 1710 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 114--136. Springer-Verlag, 1999.

Digital Library

[25]

Eric Nöcker. Strictness analysis using abstract reduction. In FPCA '93 Conference on Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architecture. Copenhagen, Denmark, 9-11 June 1993, pages 255--265. ACM Press, 1993.

Digital Library

[26]

Simon Peyton Jones, editor. Haskell 98 Language and Libraries: The Revised Report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003.

[27]

Rinus Plasmeijer and Marko van Eekelen. Concurrent Clean language report-version 1.3. Technical Report CSI-R9816, University of Nijmegen, 1998.

[28]

Manfred Schmidt-Schauß. Safety of Nöocker's strictness analysis. Journal of Functional Programming, 18(4):503--551, 2008.

Digital Library

[29]

Daniel Seidel and Janis Voigtländer. Taming selective strictness. In Stefan Fischer, Erik Maehle, and Rüdiger Reischuk, editors, INFORMATIK 2009 -- Im Focus das Leben, Beiträge der 39. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), 28. September -- 2. October, in Lübeck, volume 154 of Lecture Notes in Informatics, pages 2916--2930. GI, 2009.

[30]

Kirsten Lackner Solberg Gasser, Hanne Riis Nielson, and Flemming Nielson. Strictness and totality analysis. Science of Computer Programming, 31(1):113--145, 1998.

Digital Library

[31]

Jean-Pierre Talpin and Pierre Jouvelot. Polymorphic type, region and effect inference. Journal of Functional Programming, 2(3):245--271, 1992.

[32]

Edsko de Vries. Making Uniqueness Typing Less Unique. PhD thesis, Trinity College Dublin, 2008.

[33]

Edsko de Vries, Rinus Plasmeijer, and David Abrahamson. Uniqueness typing simplified. In Olaf Chitil, Zoltán Horváth, and Viktoria Zsók, editors, Implementation and Application of Functional Languages, 19th International Symposium, IFL 2007, Freiburg, Germany, September 2007, Revised Selected Papers, volume 5083 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 201--218. Springer-Verlag, 2008.

Digital Library

[34]

Philip Wadler. Strictness analysis on non-flat domains (by abstract interpretation over finite domains). In Samson Abramsky and Chris Hankin, editors, Abstract Interpretation of Declarative Languages, pages 266--275. Ellis Horwood, Chichester, 1987.

[35]

Philip Wadler. Theorems for free! In FPCA '89 Conference on Functional Programming and Computer Architecture. Imperial College, London, England, 11-13 September 1989, pages 347--359. ACM Press, 1989.

Digital Library

[36]

David Walker. Substructural type systems. In Benjamin C. Pierce, editor, Advanced Topics in Types and Programming Languages. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2005.

[37]

David A. Wright. A new technique for strictness analysis. In Samson Abramsky and Tom Maibaum, editors, TAPSOFT'91: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Theory and Practice of Software Development, Brighton, UK, April 8-12, 1991, Volume 2: Advances in Distributed Computing (ADC) and Colloquium on Combining Paradigms for Software Development (CCPSD), volume 494 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 235--258. Springer-Verlag, 1991.

Digital Library

Cited By

Seidel DVoigtländer J(2019)Refined typing to localize the impact of forced strictness on free theoremsActa Informatica10.1007/s00236-011-0136-948:3(191-211)Online publication date: 2-Jan-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s00236-011-0136-9
Smetsers Svan Eekelen M(2018)Derivation and inference of higher-order strictness typesComputer Languages, Systems and Structures10.1016/j.cl.2015.07.00444:PB(166-180)Online publication date: 20-Dec-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.cl.2015.07.004
Holdermans SHage J(2018)Making "stricterness" more relevantHigher-Order and Symbolic Computation10.1007/s10990-011-9079-723:3(315-335)Online publication date: 14-Dec-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10990-011-9079-7
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Making "stricterness" more relevant
1. Theory of computation
  1. Semantics and reasoning

Recommendations

Making "stricterness" more relevant

Adapting a strictness analyser to have it take into account explicit strictness annotations can be a tricky business. Straightforward extensions of analyses based on relevance typing are likely to either be unsafe or fail to pick the fruits of increases ...
A Lazy Language Needs a Lazy Type System: Introducing Polymorphic Contexts
IFL 2016: Proceedings of the 28th Symposium on the Implementation and Application of Functional Programming Languages

Most type systems that support polymorphic functions are based on a version of System-F. We argue that this limits useful programming paradigms for languages with lazy evaluation. We motivate an extension of System-F alleviating this limitation.

First, ...
Attribute grammars fly first-class: how to do aspect oriented programming in Haskell
ICFP '09: Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Functional programming

Attribute Grammars (AGs), a general-purpose formalism for describing recursive computations over data types, avoid the trade-off which arises when building software incrementally: should it be easy to add new data types and data type alternatives or to ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

PEPM '10: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM SIGPLAN workshop on Partial evaluation and program manipulation

January 2010

168 pages

ISBN:9781605587271

DOI:10.1145/1706356

Program Chairs:
John Gallagher
Roskilde University, Denmark, and IMDEA Software, Spain
,
Janis Voigtländer
University of Bonn, Germany

Copyright © 2010 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

SIGPLAN: ACM Special Interest Group on Programming Languages

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 18 January 2010

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

PEPM '10

Sponsor:

SIGPLAN

PEPM '10: Partial Evaluation and Program Manipulation

January 18 - 19, 2010

Madrid, Spain

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 66 of 120 submissions, 55%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

11
Total Citations
View Citations
161
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)2
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 08 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Seidel DVoigtländer J(2019)Refined typing to localize the impact of forced strictness on free theoremsActa Informatica10.1007/s00236-011-0136-948:3(191-211)Online publication date: 2-Jan-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s00236-011-0136-9
Smetsers Svan Eekelen M(2018)Derivation and inference of higher-order strictness typesComputer Languages, Systems and Structures10.1016/j.cl.2015.07.00444:PB(166-180)Online publication date: 20-Dec-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.cl.2015.07.004
Holdermans SHage J(2018)Making "stricterness" more relevantHigher-Order and Symbolic Computation10.1007/s10990-011-9079-723:3(315-335)Online publication date: 14-Dec-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10990-011-9079-7
SERGEY IVYTINIOTIS DJONES SBREITNER J(2017)Modular, higher order cardinality analysis in theory and practiceJournal of Functional Programming10.1017/S095679681700001627Online publication date: 16-Feb-2017
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956796817000016
Wang YNunez DFisher K(2016)Autobahn: using genetic algorithms to infer strictness annotationsACM SIGPLAN Notices10.1145/3241625.297600951:12(114-126)Online publication date: 8-Sep-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3241625.2976009
Wang YNunez DFisher KMainland G(2016)Autobahn: using genetic algorithms to infer strictness annotationsProceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Haskell10.1145/2976002.2976009(114-126)Online publication date: 8-Sep-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2976002.2976009
Verstoep HHage JAsai KSagonas K(2015)Polyvariant Cardinality Analysis for Non-strict Higher-order Functional LanguagesProceedings of the 2015 Workshop on Partial Evaluation and Program Manipulation10.1145/2678015.2682536(139-142)Online publication date: 13-Jan-2015
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2678015.2682536
Sergey IVytiniotis DPeyton Jones S(2014)Modular, higher-order cardinality analysis in theory and practiceACM SIGPLAN Notices10.1145/2578855.253586149:1(335-347)Online publication date: 8-Jan-2014
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2578855.2535861
Sergey IVytiniotis DPeyton Jones SJagannathan SSewell P(2014)Modular, higher-order cardinality analysis in theory and practiceProceedings of the 41st ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages10.1145/2535838.2535861(335-347)Online publication date: 11-Jan-2014
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2535838.2535861
Smetsers SEekelen M(2012)Higher-Order Strictness TypingProceedings of the 2012 Conference on Trends in Functional Programming - Volume 782910.1007/978-3-642-40447-4_6(85-100)Online publication date: 12-Jun-2012
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-642-40447-4_6
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten