CSE 341 : Programming Languages For larger programs, one top-level - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Modules CSE 341 : Programming Languages For larger programs, one “top-level” sequence of bindings is poor – Especially because a binding can use all earlier (non- Lecture 12 shadowed) bindings ML Modules So ML has structures to define modules structure MyModule = struct bindings end Inside a module, can use earlier bindings as usual – Can have any kind of binding (val, datatype, exception, ...) Zach Tatlock Outside a module, refer to earlier modules’ bindings via ModuleName.bindingName Spring 2014 – Just like List.foldl and String.toUpper ; now you can define your own modules 2 Example Namespace management structure MyMathLib = • So far , this is just namespace management struct – Giving a hierarchy to names to avoid shadowing – Allows different modules to reuse names, e.g., map fun fact x = – Very important, but not very interesting if x=0 then 1 else x * fact(x-1) val half_pi = Math.pi / 2 fun doubler x = x * 2 end 3 4

Optional: Open Signatures • A signature is a type for a module • Can use open ModuleName to get “direct” access to a – What bindings does it have and what are their types module’s bindings • Can define a signature and ascribe it to modules – example: – Never necessary; just a convenience; often bad style signature MATHLIB = – Often better to create local val-bindings for just the bindings sig you use a lot, e.g., val map = List.map val fact : int -> int • But doesn’t work for patterns val half_pi : real val doubler : int -> int • And open can be useful, e.g., for testing code end structure MyMathLib :> MATHLIB = struct fun fact x = … val half_pi = Math.pi / 2.0 fun doubler x = x * 2 end 5 6 In general Hiding things • Signatures Real value of signatures is to to hide bindings and type definitions signature SIGNAME = – So far, just documenting and checking the types sig types-for-bindings end – Can include variables, types, datatypes, and exceptions defined Hiding implementation details is the most important strategy for in module writing correct, robust, reusable software • Ascribing a signature to a module structure MyModule :> SIGNAME = So first remind ourselves that functions already do well for some struct bindings end forms of hiding … – Module will not type-check unless it matches the signature, meaning it has all the bindings at the right types – Note: SML has other forms of ascription; we will stick with these [opaque signatures] 7 8

Hiding with functions Example Outside the module, MyMathLib.doubler is simply unbound These three functions are totally equivalent: no client can tell which – So cannot be used [directly] we are using (so we can change our choice later): – Fairly powerful, very simple idea fun double x = x*2 fun double x = x+x signature MATHLIB = val y = 2 sig fun double x = x*y val fact : int -> int val half_pi : real Defining helper functions locally is also powerful end – Can change/remove functions later and know it affects no structure MyMathLib :> MATHLIB = other code struct fun fact x = … Would be convenient to have “private” top-level functions too val half_pi = Math.pi / 2.0 – So two functions could easily share a helper function fun doubler x = x * 2 – ML does this via signatures that omit bindings … end 9 10 A larger example [mostly see the code] Library spec and invariants Now consider a module that defines an Abstract Data Type (ADT) Properties [externally visible guarantees, up to library writer] – A type of data and operations on it – Disallow denominators of 0 Our example: rational numbers supporting add and toString – Return strings in reduced form (“4” not “4/1”, “3/2” not “9/6”) – No infinite loops or exceptions structure Rational1 = struct Invariants [part of the implementation, not the module’s spec] datatype rational = Whole of int | Frac of int*int – All denominators are greater than 0 exception BadFrac – All rational values returned from functions are reduced (*internal functions gcd and reduce not on slide*) fun make_frac (x,y) = … fun add (r1,r2) = … fun toString r = … end 11 12

More on invariants A first signature With what we know so far, this signature makes sense: Our code maintains the invariants and relies on them – gcd and reduce not visible outside the module Maintain: signature RATIONAL_A = – make_frac disallows 0 denominator, removes negative sig denominator, and reduces result datatype rational = Whole of int | Frac of int*int – add assumes invariants on inputs, calls reduce if needed exception BadFrac val make_frac : int * int -> rational val add : rational * rational -> rational Rely: val toString : rational -> string – gcd does not work with negative arguments, but no end denominator can be negative – add uses math properties to avoid calling reduce structure Rational1 :> RATIONAL_A = … – toString assumes its argument is already reduced 13 14 The problem So hide more By revealing the datatype definition, we let clients violate our invariants Key idea: An ADT must hide the concrete type definition so clients by directly creating values of type Rational1.rational cannot create invariant-violating values of the type directly – At best a comment saying “must use Rational1.make_frac ” Alas, this attempt doesn’t work because the signature now uses a signature RATIONAL_A = type rational that is not known to exist: sig datatype rational = Whole of int | Frac of int*int signature RATIONAL_WRONG = … sig exception BadFrac val make_frac : int * int -> rational Any of these would lead to exceptions, infinite loops, or wrong results, val add : rational * rational -> rational which is why the module’s code would never return them val toString : rational -> string – Rational1.Frac(1,0) end – Rational1.Frac(3,~2) structure Rational1 :> RATIONAL_WRONG = … – Rational1.Frac(9,6) 15 16

Abstract types This works! (And is a Really Big Deal) signature RATIONAL_B = So ML has a feature for exactly this situation: sig type rational In a signature: exception BadFrac type foo val make_frac : int * int -> rational val add : rational * rational -> rational means the type exists, but clients do not know its definition val toString : rational -> string signature RATIONAL_B = end sig Nothing a client can do to violate invariants and properties: type rational exception BadFrac – Only way to make first rational is Rational1.make_frac val make_frac : int * int -> rational – After that can use only Rational1.make_frac , val add : rational * rational -> rational Rational1.add , and Rational1.toString val toString : rational -> string – Hides constructors and patterns – don’t even know whether end or not Rational1.rational is a datatype structure Rational1 :> RATIONAL_B = … – But clients can still pass around fractions in any way 17 18 Two key restrictions A cute twist In our example, exposing the Whole constructor is no problem So we have two powerful ways to use signatures for hiding: In SML we can expose it as a function since the datatype binding in the module does create such a function 1. Deny bindings exist (val-bindings, fun-bindings, constructors) – Still hiding the rest of the datatype 2. Make types abstract (so clients cannot create values of them or – Still does not allow using Whole as a pattern access their pieces directly) signature RATIONAL_C = sig (Later we will see a signature can also make a binding’s type more type rational specific than it is within the module, but this is less important) exception BadFrac val Whole : int -> rational val make_frac : int * int -> rational val add : rational * rational -> rational val toString : rational -> string end 19 20