Nico Lehmann
Éric Tanter
ABSTRACT
Refinement types are an effective language-based verification technique. However, as any expressive typing discipline, its strength is its weakness, imposing sometimes undesired rigidity. Guided by abstract interpretation, we extend the gradual typing agenda and develop the notion of gradual refinement types, allowing smooth evolution and interoperability between simple types and logically-refined types. In doing so, we address two challenges unexplored in the gradual typing literature: dealing with imprecise logical information, and with dependent function types. The first challenge leads to a crucial notion of locality for refinement formulas, and the second yields novel operators related to type- and term-level substitution, identifying new opportunity for runtime errors in gradual dependently-typed languages. The gradual language we present is type safe, type sound, and satisfies the refined criteria for gradually-typed languages of Siek et al. We also explain how to extend our approach to richer refinement logics, anticipating key challenges to consider.
- F. Bañados Schwerter, R. Garcia, and É. Tanter. A theory of gradual effect systems. In 19th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Functional Programming (ICFP 2014), pages 283–295, Gothenburg, Sweden, Sept. 2014. ACM Press. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- F. Bañados Schwerter, R. Garcia, and É. Tanter. Gradual type-and-effect systems. Journal of Functional Programming, 26:19:1–19:69, Sept. 2016.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Bengtson, K. Bhargavan, C. Fournet, A. D. Gordon, and S. Maffeis. Refinement types for secure implementations. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 33(2):8:1–8:45, Jan. 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Chugh. Nested Refinement Types for JavaScript. PhD thesis, University of California, Sept. 2013.Google Scholar
- R. Chugh, D. Herman, and R. Jhala. Dependent types for JavaScript. In 27th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages and Applications (OOPSLA 2012), pages 587–606, Tucson, AZ, USA, Oct. 2012a. ACM Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Chugh, P. M. Rondon, A. Bakst, and R. Jhala. Nested refinements: a logic for duck typing. In 39th annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL 2012), pages 231–244, Philadelphia, USA, Jan. 2012b. ACM Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Church. A formulation of the simple theory of types. J. Symbolic Logic, 5(2):56–68, 06 1940.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Abstract interpretation: A unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In 4th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL 77), pages 238–252, Los Angeles, CA, USA, Jan. 1977. Google ScholarDigital Library
- ACM Press.Google Scholar
- T. Disney and C. Flanagan. Gradual information flow typing. In International Workshop on Scripts to Programs, 2011.Google Scholar
- L. Fennell and P. Thiemann. Gradual security typing with references. In Computer Security Foundations Symposium, pages 224–239, June 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. B. Findler and M. Felleisen. Contracts for higher-order functions. In 7th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Functional Programming (ICFP 2002), pages 48–59, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, Sept. 2002. ACM Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Flanagan. Hybrid type checking. In 33th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL 2006), pages 245–256, Charleston, SC, USA, Jan. 2006. ACM Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Freeman and F. Pfenning. Refinement types for ML. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI ’91), pages 268–277. ACM Press, 1991. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Garcia and M. Cimini. Principal type schemes for gradual programs. In 42nd ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL 2015), pages 303–315. ACM Press, Jan. 2015. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Garcia, A. M. Clark, and É. Tanter. Abstracting gradual typing. In 43rd ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL 2016), St Petersburg, FL, USA, Jan. 2016. ACM Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Greenberg, B. C. Pierce, and S. Weirich. Contracts made manifest. In 37th annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL 2010), pages 353–364. ACM Press, Jan. 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Gronski and C. Flanagan. Unifying hybrid types and contracts. In Trends in Functional Programming, pages 54–70, 2007.Google Scholar
- W. A. Howard. The formulae-as-types notion of construction. In J. P. Seldin and J. R. Hindley, editors, To H. B. Curry: Essays on Combinatory Logic, Lambda Calculus, and Formalism, pages 479–490. Academic Press, New York, 1980. Reprint of 1969 article. M. Kawaguchi, P. Rondon, and R. Jhala. Type-based data structure verification. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI 2009), pages 304–315. ACM Press, June 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Knowles and C. Flanagan. Hybrid type checking. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst., 32(2), 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. Lehmann and É. Tanter. Gradual refinement types – extended version with proofs. Technical Report TR/DCC-2016-1, University of Chile, Nov. 2016.Google Scholar
- A. Miné. Weakly Relational Numerical Abstract Domains. PhD thesis, L’École Polythechnique, Dec. 2004.Google Scholar
- X. Ou, G. Tan, Y. Mandelbaum, and D. Walker. Dynamic typing with dependent types. In Proceedings of the IFIP International Conference on Theoretical Computer Science, pages 437–450, 2004.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. M. Rondon, M. Kawaguci, and R. Jhala. Liquid types. In 29th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI 2008), pages 159–169, Tucson, AZ, USA, June 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- ACM Press.Google Scholar
- J. G. Siek and W. Taha. Gradual typing for functional languages. In Scheme and Functional Programming Workshop, pages 81–92, Sept. 2006.Google Scholar
- J. G. Siek, M. M. Vitousek, M. Cimini, and J. T. Boyland. Refined criteria for gradual typing. In 1st Summit on Advances in Programming Languages (SNAPL 2015), pages 274–293, 2015.Google Scholar
- M. Sozeau. Subset coercions in Coq. In Types for Proofs and Programs, volume 4502 of LNCS, pages 237–252. Springer-Verlag, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. Swamy, C. Hritcu, C. Keller, A. Rastogi, A. Delignat-Lavaud, S. Forest, K. Bhargavan, C. Fournet, P.-Y. Strub, M. Kohlweiss, J. K. Zinzindohoue, and S. Zanella Béguelin. Dependent types and multi-effects in F. In 43rd ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL 2016), pages 256–270, St Petersburg, FL, USA, Jan. 2016. ACM Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- É. Tanter and N. Tabareau. Gradual certified programming in Coq. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM Dynamic Languages Symposium (DLS 2015), pages 26–40, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, Oct. 2015. ACM Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Thiemann and L. Fennell. Gradual typing for annotated type systems. In Z. Shao, editor, 23rd European Symposium on Programming Languages and Systems (ESOP 2014), volume 8410 of LNCS, pages 47–66, Grenoble, France, 2014. Springer-Verlag. Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. Vazou, P. M. Rondon, and R. Jhala. Abstract refinement types. In M. Felleisen and P. Gardner, editors, Proceedings of the 22nd European Symposium on Programming Languages and Systems (ESOP 2013), volume 7792 of LNCS, pages 209–228, Rome, Italy, Mar. 2013. Springer-Verlag. Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. Vazou, E. L. Seidel, R. Jhala, D. Vytiniotis, and S. L. P. Jones. Refinement types for haskell. In 19th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Functional Programming (ICFP 2014), pages 269–282, Gothenburg, Sweden, Sept. 2014. ACM Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. Vazou, A. Bakst, and R. Jhala. Bounded refinement types. In 20th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Functional Programming (ICFP 2015), pages 48–61, Vancouver, Canada, Sept. 2015. ACM Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Vekris, B. Cosman, and R. Jhala. Refinement types for TypeScript. In Proceedings of the 37th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI 2016), pages 310–325, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, June 2016. ACM Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Xi and F. Pfenning. Eliminating array bound checking through dependent types. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI ’98), pages 249–257. ACM Press, 1998. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Gradual refinement types
Recommendations
Abstracting gradual typing
POPL '16: Proceedings of the 43rd Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming LanguagesLanguage researchers and designers have extended a wide variety of type systems to support gradual typing, which enables languages to seamlessly combine dynamic and static checking. These efforts consistently demonstrate that designing a satisfactory ...
Gradual refinement types
POPL '17Refinement types are an effective language-based verification technique. However, as any expressive typing discipline, its strength is its weakness, imposing sometimes undesired rigidity. Guided by abstract interpretation, we extend the gradual typing ...
Sums of uncertainty: refinements go gradual
POPL '17A long-standing shortcoming of statically typed functional languages is that type checking does not rule out pattern-matching failures (run-time match exceptions). Refinement types distinguish different values of datatypes; if a program annotated with ...
Comments