Extending Dylan's type system for better type inference and error detection

Gradual typing lets programmers evolve their dynamically typed programs by gradually adding explicit type annotations, which confer benefits like improved performance and fewer run-time failures. However, we argue that such evolution often requires a giant leap, and that type inference can offer a crucial missing step. If omitted type annotations are interpreted as unknown types, rather than the dynamic type, then static types can often be inferred, thereby removing unnecessary assumptions of the dynamic type. The remaining assumptions of the dynamic type may then be removed by either reasoning outside the static type system, or restructuring the code. We present a type inference algorithm that can improve the performance of existing gradually typed programs without introducing any new run-time failures. To account for dynamic typing, types that flow in to an unknown type are treated in a fundamentally different manner than types that flow out. Furthermore, in the interests of backward-compatibility, an escape analysis is conducted to decide which types are safe to infer. We have implemented our algorithm for ActionScript, and evaluated it on the SunSpider and V8 benchmark suites. We demonstrate that our algorithm can improve the performance of unannotated programs as well as recover most of the type annotations in annotated programs.

Consistent subtyping is employed in some gradual type systems to validate type conversions. The original definition by Siek and Taha serves as a guideline for designing gradual type systems with subtyping. Polymorphic types à la System F also induce a subtyping relation that relates polymorphic types to their instantiations. However, Siek and Taha’s definition is not adequate for polymorphic subtyping. The first goal of this article is to propose a generalization of consistent subtyping that is adequate for polymorphic subtyping and subsumes the original definition by Siek and Taha. The new definition of consistent subtyping provides novel insights with respect to previous polymorphic gradual type systems, which did not employ consistent subtyping. The second goal of this article is to present a gradually typed calculus for implicit (higher-rank) polymorphism that uses our new notion of consistent subtyping. We develop both declarative and (bidirectional) algorithmic versions for the type system. The algorithmic version employs techniques developed by Dunfield and Krishnaswami for higher-rank polymorphism to deal with instantiation. We prove that the new calculus satisfies all static aspects of the refined criteria for gradual typing. We also study an extension of the type system with static and gradual type parameters, in an attempt to support a variant of the dynamic criterion for gradual typing. Assuming a coherence conjecture for the extended calculus, we show that the dynamic gradual guarantee of our source language can be reduced to that of λ B, which, at the time of writing, is still an open question. Most of the metatheory of this article, except some manual proofs for the algorithmic type system and extensions, has been mechanically formalized using the Coq proof assistant.

Gradual typing allows programs to enjoy the benefits of both static typing and dynamic typing. While it is often desirable to migrate a program from more dynamically typed to more statically typed or vice versa, gradual typing itself does not provide a way to facilitate this migration. This places the burden on programmers who have to manually add or remove type annotations. Besides the general challenge of adding type annotations to dynamically typed code, there are subtle interactions between these annotations in gradually typed code that exacerbate the situation. For example, to migrate a program to be as static as possible, in general, all possible combinations of adding or removing type annotations from parameters must be tried out and compared. In this paper, we address this problem by developing migrational typing , which efficiently types all possible ways of replacing dynamic types with fully static types for a gradually typed program. The typing result supports automatically migrating a program to be as static as possible or introducing the least number of dynamic types necessary to remove a type error. The approach can be extended to support user-defined criteria about which annotations to modify. We have implemented migrational typing and evaluated it on large programs. The results show that migrational typing scales linearly with the size of the program and takes only 2–4 times longer than plain gradual typing.

Static and dynamic typing have different strengths and weaknesses. Gradual typing allows a programmer to combine statically and dynamically typed sections of code in one program. This allows the best typing choice for each part of the code. Sadly, the advantages of efficient program execution that come with static typing do not yet carry over to a gradual typing system. This is because no optimizations have yet been proposed that take advantage of the type information present in this context. In this work, we propose optimizations for gradually typed applications, focused on four areas: optimizing method lookup, optimizing type checking, breaking encapsulation and improving infrastructure. We also propose how we are going to validate these optimizations.

Dynamic type-checking and object-oriented programming often go hand-in-hand; scripting languages such as Python, Ruby, and JavaScript all embrace object-oriented (OO) programming. When scripts written in such languages grow and evolve into large programs, the lack of a static type discipline reduces maintainability. A programmer may thus wish to migrate parts of such scripts to a sister language with a static type system. Unfortunately, existing type systems neither support the flexible OO composition mechanisms found in scripting languages nor accommodate sound interoperation with untyped code. In this paper, we present the design of a gradual typing system that supports sound interaction between statically- and dynamically-typed units of class-based code. The type system uses row polymorphism for classes and thus supports mixin-based OO composition. To protect migration of mixins from typed to untyped components, the system employs a novel form of contracts that partially seal classes. The design comes with a theorem that guarantees the soundness of the type system even in the presence of untyped components.

Gradual typing is an approach to integrating static and dynamic type checking within the same language [Siek and Taha 2006]. Given the name typing, one might think that the most interesting aspect is the type system. It turns out that the dynamic semantics of gradually-typed languages is more complex than the static semantics, with many points in the design space [Wadler and Findler 2009; Siek et al. 2009] and many challenges concerning efficiency [Herman et al. 2007; Hansen 2007; Siek and Taha 2007; Siek and Wadler 2010; Wrigstad et al. 2010; Rastogi et al. 2012]. In this distilled tutorial, we explore the meaning of gradual typing and the challenges to efficient implementation by writing several definitional interpreters and abstract machines in Scheme for the gradually-typed lambda calculus.

Gradual type systems offer a smooth continuum between static and dynamic typing by permitting the free mixture of typed and untyped code. The runtime systems for these languages, and other languages with hybrid type checking, typically enforce function types by dynamically generating function proxies. This approach can result in unbounded growth in the number of proxies, however, which drastically impacts space efficiency and destroys tail recursion. We present a semantics for gradual typing that is based on coercions instead of function proxies, and which combines adjacent coercions at runtime to limit their space consumption. We prove bounds on the space consumed by coercions as well as soundness of the type system, demonstrating that programmers can safely mix typing disciplines without incurring unreasonable overheads. Our approach also detects certain errors earlier than prior work.

Since the arrival of gradual typing, which allows partially typed code in a single program, efficient implementations of gradual typing have been an active research topic. In this paper, we study the space-efficiency problem of gradual typing in the presence of parametric polymorphism. Based on the existing work that showed the impossibility of a space-efficient implementation that supports fully parametric polymorphism, this paper will show that a space-efficient implementation is, in principle, possible by slightly relaxing parametricity. We first develop λC mp , which is a coercion calculus with mostly parametric polymorphism, and show its relaxed parametricity. Then, we present λS mp , a space-efficient version of λC mp , and prove that λS mp programs can be executed in a space-efficient manner and that translation from λC mp to λS mp is type- and semantics-preserving.

Combining static and dynamic typing within the same language offers clear benefits to programmers. It provides dynamic typing in situations that require rapid prototyping, heterogeneous data structures, and reflection, while supporting static typing when safety, modularity, and efficiency are primary concerns. Siek and Taha (2006) introduced an approach to combining static and dynamic typing in a fine-grained manner through the notion of type consistency in the static semantics and run-time casts in the dynamic semantics. However, many open questions remain regarding the semantics of gradually typed languages. In this paper we present Reticulated Python, a system for experimenting with gradual-typed dialects of Python. The dialects are syntactically identical to Python 3 but give static and dynamic semantics to the type annotations already present in Python 3. Reticulated Python consists of a typechecker and a source-to-source translator from Reticulated Python to Python 3. Using Reticulated Python, we evaluate a gradual type system and three approaches to the dynamic semantics of mutable objects: the traditional semantics based on Siek and Taha (2007) and Herman et al. (2007) and two new designs. We evaluate these designs in the context of several third-party Python programs.

Consistent subtyping is employed in some gradual type systems to validate type conversions. The original definition by Siek and Taha serves as a guideline for designing gradual type systems with subtyping. Polymorphic types à la System F also induce a subtyping relation that relates polymorphic types to their instantiations. However Siek and Taha’s definition is not adequate for polymorphic subtyping. The first goal of this paper is to propose a generalization of consistent subtyping that is adequate for polymorphic subtyping, and subsumes the original definition by Siek and Taha. The new definition of consistent subtyping provides novel insights with respect to previous polymorphic gradual type systems, which did not employ consistent subtyping. The second goal of this paper is to present a gradually typed calculus for implicit (higher-rank) polymorphism that uses our new notion of consistent subtyping. We develop both declarative and (bidirectional) algorithmic versions for the type system. We prove that the new calculus satisfies all static aspects of the refined criteria for gradual typing, which are mechanically formalized using the Coq proof assistant.

Abstracting Gradual Typing (AGT) is a systematic approach to designing gradually-typed languages. Languages developed using AGT automatically satisfy the formal semantic criteria for gradual languages identified by Siek et al. Nonetheless, vanilla AGT semantics can still have important shortcomings. First, a gradual language's runtime checks should preserve the space-efficiency guarantees inherent to the underlying static and dynamic languages. To the contrary, the default operational semantics of AGT break proper tail calls. Second, a gradual language's runtime checks should enforce basic modular type-based invariants expected from the static type discipline. To the contrary, the default operational semantics of AGT may fail to enforce some invariants in surprising ways. We demonstrate this in the GTFL ≲ language of Garcia et al. This paper addresses both problems at once by refining the theory underlying AGT's dynamic checks. Garcia et al. observe that AGT involves two abstractions of static types: one for the static semantics and one for the dynamic semantics. We recast the latter as an abstract interpretation of subtyping itself, while gradual types still abstract static types. Then we show how forward-completeness (Giacobazzi and Quintarelli) is key to supporting both space-efficient execution and reliable runtime type enforcement.

Several negative results are proved about the ability to type-check queries in the only existing proposed standard for object-oriented databases. The first of these negative results is that it is not possible to type-check OQL queries in the type system underlying the ODMG object model and its definition language ODL. The second negative result is that OQL queries cannot be type-checked in the type system of the Java binding of the ODMG standard either. A solution proposed in this paper is to extend the ODMG object model with explicit support for parametric polymorphism (universal type quantification). These results show that Java cannot be a viable database programming language unless extended with parametric polymorphism. This is why type-checking OQL queries presents no problem for the type system of the C++ binding of the ODMG standard. However, a type system that is strictly more powerful than any of the type systems of the ODMG standard is required in order to properly type ordered collectgions and indices. The required form of polymorphism is bounded type quantification (constrained genericity) and even F-bounded polymorphism. A further result is that neither static nor the standard dynamic object-oriented type-checking is possible for Java OQL, in spite of the fact that Java OQL combines features of two strongly and mostly statically-typed languages. Contrary to one of the promises of object-oriented database technology, this result shows that the impedance mismatch does not disappear in the ODMG standard. A type-safe reflective technique is proposed for overcoming this mismatch.

The promise of gradual typing is that programmers should get the best of both worlds: the static guarantees of static types, and the dynamic flexibility of untyped programming. This is an enticing benefit, but one that, in practice, may carry significant costs. Significant enough, in fact, to threaten the very practicality of gradual typing; slowdowns as high as 120x are reported as arising from gradual typing. If one examines these results closely, though, it becomes clear that the costs of gradual typing are not evenly distributed. Indeed, while mixing typed and untyped code almost invariably carries non-trivial costs, many truly deal-breaking slowdowns exhibit pathological performance. Unfortunately, the very presence of these pathological cases---and therefore the possibility of hitting them during development---makes gradual typing a risky proposition in any setting that even remotely cares about performance. This work attacks one source of large overheads in these pathological cases: an accumulation of contract wrappers that perform redundant checks. The work introduces a novel strategy for contract checking---collapsible contracts---which eliminates this redundancy for function and vector contracts and drastically reduces the overhead of contract wrappers. We implemented this checking strategy as part of the Racket contract system, which is used in the Typed Racket gradual typing system. Our experiments show that our strategy successfully brings a class of pathological cases in line with normal cases, while not introducing an undue overhead to any of the other cases. Our results also show that the performance of gradual typing in Racket remains prohibitive for many programs, but that collapsible contracts are one essential ingredient in reducing the cost of gradual typing.

Hindley and Milner's type system, in its purest form, allows what one might call full type inference. Even when a program contains no explicit type information, its very structure gives rise to a conjunction of type equations (or, more generally, to a constraint) whose resolution allows reconstructing the type of every variable and of every sub-expression. Actual programming languages based on this type system, such as Standard ML, Objective Caml, and Haskell, do allow users to provide explicit type information via optional type annotations. Yet, this extra information does not make type inference any easier: it simply gives rise to extra equations, leading to a more specific constraint.There are extensions of Hindley and Milner's type system where full type inference becomes undecidable or intractable. Then, it is common to require explicit type information, via mandatory type annotations. Polymorphic recursion is a simple and well-known instance of this phenomenon. This talk presents two more elaborate instances, commonly known as arbitrary-rank polymorphism and generalized algebraic data types.In both cases, type inference is made tractable thanks to mandatory type annotations. There is a twist, though: these required annotations are often numerous and redundant. So, it seems desirable to make them optional again, and to set up a distinct mechanism to guess some of the elided annotations. This mechanism, referred to as elaboration, can be heuristic. It must be predictable. In the two cases considered in this talk, it is a form of local type inference.This approach leads to a so-called stratified type inference system, where type information is propagated first in a local, ad hoc manner during elaboration, then in a possibly nonlocal, but well-specified manner during constraint solving. This appears to be one of the less displeasing ways of describing type inference systems that are able to exploit optional type annotations to infer better (or different) types.

Article Free Access Share on Refinement types for ML Authors: Tim Freeman School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PennsylvaniaView Profile , Frank Pfenning School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PennsylvaniaView Profile Authors Info & Claims PLDI '91: Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 1991 conference on Programming language design and implementationMay 1991 Pages 268–277https://doi.org/10.1145/113445.113468Online:01 May 1991Publication History 293citation1,256DownloadsMetricsTotal Citations293Total Downloads1,256Last 12 Months93Last 6 weeks10 Get Citation AlertsNew Citation Alert added!This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.Manage my AlertsNew Citation Alert!Please log in to your account Save to BinderSave to BinderCreate a New BinderNameCancelCreateExport CitationPublisher SiteeReaderPDF