skip to main content
10.1145/2103786.2103788acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespoplConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Towards concurrent type theory

Authors Info & Claims
Published:28 January 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

We review progress in a recent line of research that provides a concurrent computational interpretation of (intuitionistic) linear logic. Propositions are interpreted as session types, sequent proofs as processes in the pi-calculus, cut reductions as process reductions, and vice versa. The strong proof-theoretic foundation of this type system provides immediate opportunities for uniform generalization, specifically, to embed terms from a functional type theory. The resulting system satisfies the properties of type preservation, progress, and termination, as expected from a language derived via a Curry-Howard isomorphism. While very expressive, the language is strictly stratified so that dependent types for functional terms can be enforced during communication, but neither processes nor channels can appear in functional terms. We briefly speculate on how this limitation might be overcome to arrive at a fully dependent concurrent type theory.

References

  1. M. Abadi and C. Fournet Mobile values, new names, and secure communication In 28th Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages POPL'01, pages 104--115, London, United Kingdom, 2001. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. S. Abramsky Computational interpretations of linear logic Theoretical Computer Science, 111: 3--57, 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. J.-M. Andreoli. Logic programming with focusing proofs in linear logic. Journal of Logic and Computation, 2(3):197--347, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. S. Awodey and A. Bauer. Propositions as {types}. Journal of Logic and Computation, 14(4):447--471, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. A. G. Barber. Linear Type Theories, Semantics and Action Calculi. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1997. Available as Technical Report ECS-LFCS-97-371.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. L. Caires and F. Pfenning. Session types as intuitionistic linear propositions. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Concurrency Theory (CONCUR 2010), pages 222--236, Paris, France, Aug. 2010. Springer LNCS 6269. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. B.-Y. E. Chang, K. Chaudhuri, and F. Pfenning. A judgmental analysis of linear logic. Technical Report CMU-CS-03-131R, Carnegie Mellon University, Department of Computer Science, Dec. 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. A. Church. A formulation of the simple theory of types. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 5:56--68, 1940.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. A. Church and J. Rosser. Some properties of conversion. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 39(3):472--482, May 1936.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. R. L. Constable et al. Implementing Mathematics with the Nuprl Proof Development System. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1986. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. H. B. Curry. Functionality in combinatory logic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., 20:584--590, 1934.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. LinD. Garg, L. Bauer, K. Bowers, F. Pfenning, and M. Reiter. A linear logic of affirmation and knowledge. In D. Gollman, J. Meier, and A. Sabelfeld, editors, Proceedings of the 11th European Symposium on Research in Computer Security (ESORICS'06), pages 297--312, Hamburg, Germany, Sept. 2006. Springer LNCS 4189. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. J.-Y. Girard. Linear logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 50:1--102, 1987. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. J.-Y. Girard. Towards a geometry of interaction. In J. W. Gray and A. Scedrov, editors, Categories in Computer Science and Logic, pages 69--108. American Mathematical Society, 1989. Contemporary Mathematics, Volume 92.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. K. Honda. Types for dyadic interaction. In 4th International Conference on Concurrency Theory, CONCUR'93, pages 509--523. Springer LNCS 715, 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. K. Honda, V. T. Vasconcelos, and M. Kubo. Language primitives and type discipline for structured communication-based programming. In 7th European Symposium on Programming Languages and Systems, ESOP'98, pages 122--138. Springer LNCS 1381, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. W. A. Howard. The formulae-as-types notion of construction. Unpublished note. An annotated version appeared in: To H.B. Curry: Essays on Combinatory Logic, Lambda Calculus and Formalism, 479--490, Academic Press (1980), 1969.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. J. M. E. Hyland and C.-H. L. Ong. Pi-calculus, dialogue games and PCF. In 7th Conference on Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architecture, FPCA'95, pages 96--107, La Jolla, California, June 1995. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. P. Martin-Löf. Constructive mathematics and computer programming. In Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science VI, pages 153--175. North-Holland, 1980.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. M. Merro and D. Sangiorgi. On asynchrony in name-passing calculi. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 14(5):715--767, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. R. Milner. Functions as processes. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 2(2):119--141, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. R. Milner, J. Parrow, and D. Walker. A calculus of mobile processes. Information and Computation, 100(1):1--77, Sept. 1992. Parts I and II.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. J. A. Pérez, L. Caires, F. Pfenning, and B. Toninho. Termination in sessionbased concurrency via linear logical relations. Submitted, Oct. 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. F. Pfenning, L. Caires, and B. Toninho. Proof-carrying code in a sessiontyped process calculus. In 1st International Conference on Certified Programs and Proofs, CPP'11, Kenting, Taiwan, Dec. 2011. Springer LNCS. To appear. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. D. Prawitz. Natural Deduction. Almquist & Wiksell, Stockholm, 1965.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. J. C. Reed. A Hybrid Logical Framework. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Sept. 2009. Available as Technical Report CMU-CS-09-155. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. D. Sangiorgi and D. Walker. The π-Calculus: A Theory of Mobile Processes. Cambridge University Press, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. B. Toninho, L. Caires, and F. Pfenning. Dependent session types via intuitionistic linear type theory. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming, PPDP'11, pages 161--172, Odense, Denmark, July 2011a. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Towards concurrent type theory

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

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

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        TLDI '12: Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGPLAN workshop on Types in language design and implementation
        January 2012
        110 pages
        ISBN:9781450311205
        DOI:10.1145/2103786

        Copyright © 2012 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]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 28 January 2012

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate11of26submissions,42%

        Upcoming Conference

        POPL '25

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader