set theoretic foundation of parametric polymorphism and
play

Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Apr 30, 2023 •506 likes •1.58k views

ICFP11 Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping Giuseppe Castagna 1 and Zhiwu Xu 1 , 2 1 CNRS, Laboratoire Preuves, Programmes et Syst` emes, Universit e Paris Diderot, Paris, France. 2 State Key Laboratory of

  1. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Real case example: active pages To create a dynamically generated page in the Ocsigen web development systems: 1 define a function from the query string to Xhtml: let page_fun(p: {title: string, ...}) : Xhtml = ... 2 bind page fun to the path $WEBROOT/w/index by: register new service register new service register new service(page fun,"w/index") The (wished) type of register_new_service is → ∀ ( X ≤ Params ) . (( X → → Xhtml ) × Path ) → unit logoP7 where Params is a specification of all possible query strings Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 4/27

  2. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Real case example: active pages To create a dynamically generated page in the Ocsigen web development systems: 1 define a function from the query string to Xhtml: let page_fun(p: {title: string, ...}) : Xhtml = ... 2 bind page fun to the path $WEBROOT/w/index by: register new service register new service register new service(page fun,"w/index") The (wished) type of register_new_service is → ∀ ( X ≤ Params ) . (( X → → Xhtml ) × Path ) → unit logoP7 where Params is a specification of all possible query strings Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 4/27

  3. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Real case example: active pages To create a dynamically generated page in the Ocsigen web development systems: 1 define a function from the query string to Xhtml: let page_fun(p: {title: string, ...}) : Xhtml = ... 2 bind page fun to the path $WEBROOT/w/index by: register new service register new service register new service(page fun,"w/index") The (wished) type of register_new_service is → ∀ ( X ≤ Params ) . (( X → → Xhtml ) × Path ) → unit logoP7 where Params is a specification of all possible query strings Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 4/27

  4. ❈ 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Current status Study of a type system of (recursive/regular) types with × → ∨ ∧ α t ::= B | t × × t | t → → t | t ∨ ∨ t | t ∧ ∧ t | ¬ t | ✵ | ✶ | α α type constructors logical connectives type variables logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 5/27

  5. ❈ 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Current status Study of a type system of (recursive/regular) types with × → ∨ ∧ α t ::= B | t × × t | t → → t | t ∨ ∨ t | t ∧ ∧ t | ¬ t | ✵ | ✶ | α α type constructors logical connectives type variables Logical connectives: Well-known how to implement a functional language with pattern-matching, higher-order functions, and connectives with set theoretic interpretation . logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 5/27

  6. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Current status Study of a type system of (recursive/regular) types with × → ∨ ∧ α t ::= B | t × × t | t → → t | t ∨ ∨ t | t ∧ ∧ t | ¬ t | ✵ | ✶ | α α type constructors logical connectives type variables Logical connectives: Well-known how to implement a functional language with pattern-matching, higher-order functions, and connectives with set theoretic interpretation . Semantic subtyping (implemented by the language ❈ Duce ). logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 5/27

  7. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Current status Study of a type system of (recursive/regular) types with × → ∨ ∧ α t ::= B | t × × t | t → → t | t ∨ ∨ t | t ∧ ∧ t | ¬ t | ✵ | ✶ | α α type constructors logical connectives type variables Logical connectives: Well-known how to implement a functional language with pattern-matching, higher-order functions, and connectives with set theoretic interpretation . Semantic subtyping (implemented by the language ❈ Duce ). Type variables: A set-theoretic approach was deemed unfeasible or even impossible: logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 5/27

  8. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Current status Study of a type system of (recursive/regular) types with × → ∨ ∧ α t ::= B | t × × t | t → → t | t ∨ ∨ t | t ∧ ∧ t | ¬ t | ✵ | ✶ | α α type constructors logical connectives type variables Logical connectives: Well-known how to implement a functional language with pattern-matching, higher-order functions, and connectives with set theoretic interpretation . Semantic subtyping (implemented by the language ❈ Duce ). Type variables: A set-theoretic approach was deemed unfeasible or even impossible: This work (built on the work of semantic subtyping) logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 5/27

  9. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Semantic Subtyping in a nutshell logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 6/27

  10. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Semantic subtyping t ::= B | t × × t | t → × → → t | t ∨ ∨ ∨ t | t ∧ ∧ t | ¬ t | ✵ | ✶ ∧ logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 7/27

  11. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Semantic subtyping t ::= B | t × × × t | t → → → t | t ∨ ∨ ∨ t | t ∧ ∧ ∧ t | ¬ t | ✵ | ✶ Constructor subtyping is easy : constructors do not mix, eg. : s 2 ≤ s 1 t 1 ≤ t 2 s 1 → → → t 1 ≤ s 2 → → t 2 → logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 7/27

  12. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Semantic subtyping t ::= B | t × × × t | t → → → t | t ∨ ∨ ∨ t | t ∧ ∧ ∧ t | ¬ t | ✵ | ✶ Constructor subtyping is easy : constructors do not mix, eg. : s 2 ≤ s 1 t 1 ≤ t 2 s 1 → → t 1 ≤ s 2 → → → → t 2 Connective subtyping is harder : connectives distribute over constructors , eg. � ∨ → → ∧ → ( s 1 ∨ ∨ s 2 ) → → t ( s 1 → → t ) ∧ ∧ ( s 2 → → t ) logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 7/27

  13. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Semantic subtyping t ::= B | t × × t | t → × → → t | t ∨ ∨ ∨ t | t ∧ ∧ ∧ t | ¬ t | ✵ | ✶ Constructor subtyping is easy : constructors do not mix, eg. : s 2 ≤ s 1 t 1 ≤ t 2 s 1 → → → t 1 ≤ s 2 → → t 2 → Connective subtyping is harder : connectives distribute over constructors , eg. � ∨ → → ∧ → ( s 1 ∨ ∨ s 2 ) → → t ( s 1 → → t ) ∧ ∧ ( s 2 → → t ) Define subtyping semantically: [Hosoya, Pierce] 1 Interpret types as sets (of values) 2 Define subtyping as set containment. logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 7/27

  14. ✵ 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Semantic subtyping: formalization First , define an interpretation of types into sets. � � : Types → P ( D ) such that logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 8/27

  15. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Semantic subtyping: formalization First , define an interpretation of types into sets. � � : Types → P ( D ) such that Connectives have their set-theoretic interpretation: ∨ ∪ � ✵ � = ∅ � t 1 ∨ ∨ t 2 � = � t 1 � ∪ ∪ � t 2 � � ¬ ¬ ¬ t � = D\ \ \ � t � � t 1 ∧ ∧ ∧ t 2 � = � t 1 � ∩ ∩ � t 2 � ∩ logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 8/27

  16. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Semantic subtyping: formalization First , define an interpretation of types into sets. � � : Types → P ( D ) such that Connectives have their set-theoretic interpretation: ∨ ∪ � ✵ � = ∅ � t 1 ∨ ∨ t 2 � = � t 1 � ∪ ∪ � t 2 � � ¬ ¬ ¬ t � = D\ \ � t � \ � t 1 ∧ ∧ ∧ t 2 � = � t 1 � ∩ ∩ ∩ � t 2 � Constructors have their natural interpretation: D 2 ⊆ D � t 1 × × × t 2 � = � t 1 � × × × � t 2 � D D ⊆ D � t 1 → → → t 2 � = { f | f function from � t 1 � to � t 2 � } logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 8/27

  17. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Semantic subtyping: formalization First , define an interpretation of types into sets. � � : Types → P ( D ) such that Connectives have their set-theoretic interpretation: ∨ ∪ � ✵ � = ∅ � t 1 ∨ ∨ t 2 � = � t 1 � ∪ ∪ � t 2 � � ¬ ¬ ¬ t � = D\ \ \ � t � � t 1 ∧ ∧ ∧ t 2 � = � t 1 � ∩ ∩ � t 2 � ∩ Constructors have their natural interpretation: D 2 ⊆ D � t 1 × × × t 2 � = � t 1 � × × × � t 2 � D D ⊆ D � t 1 → → → t 2 � = { f | f function from � t 1 � to � t 2 � } Then define the subtyping relation as set-containment. def s ≤ t ⇐ ⇒ � s � ⊆ � t � logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 8/27

  18. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Semantic subtyping: formalization First , define an interpretation of types into sets. � � : Types → P ( D ) such that Connectives have their set-theoretic interpretation: ∨ ∪ � ✵ � = ∅ � t 1 ∨ ∨ t 2 � = � t 1 � ∪ ∪ � t 2 � � ¬ ¬ ¬ t � = D\ \ \ � t � � t 1 ∧ ∧ ∧ t 2 � = � t 1 � ∩ ∩ � t 2 � ∩ Constructors have their natural interpretation: D 2 ⊆ D � t 1 × × × t 2 � = � t 1 � × × × � t 2 � D D ⊆ D � t 1 → → → t 2 � = { f | f function from � t 1 � to � t 2 � } Then define the subtyping relation as set-containment. def s ≤ t ⇐ ⇒ � s � ⊆ � t � logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 8/27

  19. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Semantic subtyping: formalization First , define an interpretation of types into sets. � � : Types → P ( D ) such that Connectives have their set-theoretic interpretation: ∨ ∪ � ✵ � = ∅ � t 1 ∨ ∨ t 2 � = � t 1 � ∪ ∪ � t 2 � � ¬ ¬ ¬ t � = D\ \ \ � t � � t 1 ∧ ∧ ∧ t 2 � = � t 1 � ∩ ∩ � t 2 � ∩ Constructors have their natural interpretation: D 2 ⊆ D � t 1 × × × t 2 � = � t 1 � × × × � t 2 � D D ⊆ D � t 1 → → → t 2 � = { f | f function from � t 1 � to � t 2 � } Then define the subtyping relation as set-containment. def s ≤ t ⇐ ⇒ � s � ⊆ � t � logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 8/27

  20. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Semantic subtyping: formalization First , define an interpretation of types into sets. � � : Types → P ( D ) such that Connectives have their set-theoretic interpretation: ∨ ∪ � ✵ � = ∅ � t 1 ∨ ∨ t 2 � = � t 1 � ∪ ∪ � t 2 � � ¬ ¬ ¬ t � = D\ \ \ � t � � t 1 ∧ ∧ t 2 � = � t 1 � ∩ ∧ ∩ � t 2 � ∩ Constructors have their natural interpretation: D 2 ⊆ D � t 1 × × × t 2 � = � t 1 � × × × � t 2 � D D ⊆ D � t 1 → → → t 2 � = { f | f function from � t 1 � to � t 2 � } Then define the subtyping relation as set-containment. def s ≤ t ⇐ ⇒ � s � ⊆ � t � Key idea Do not define what types are logoP7 define how they are related Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 8/27

  21. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Semantic subtyping: formalization First , define an interpretation of types into sets. � � : Types → P ( D ) such that Connectives have their set-theoretic interpretation: ∨ ∪ � ✵ � = ∅ � t 1 ∨ ∨ t 2 � = � t 1 � ∪ ∪ � t 2 � � ¬ ¬ ¬ t � = D\ \ \ � t � � t 1 ∧ ∧ t 2 � = � t 1 � ∩ ∧ ∩ � t 2 � ∩ Constructors have their natural interpretation: D 2 ⊆ D � t 1 × × × t 2 � = � t 1 � × × × � t 2 � D D ⊆ D � t 1 → → → t 2 � = { f | f function from � t 1 � to � t 2 � } Then define the subtyping relation as set-containment. def s ≤ t ⇐ ⇒ � s � ⊆ � t � Key idea Do not define what types are logoP7 define how they are related Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 8/27

  22. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Semantic subtyping: formalization First , define an interpretation of types into sets. � � : Types → P ( D ) such that Connectives have their set-theoretic interpretation: ∨ ∪ � ✵ � = ∅ � t 1 ∨ ∨ t 2 � = � t 1 � ∪ ∪ � t 2 � � ¬ ¬ ¬ t � = D\ \ \ � t � � t 1 ∧ ∧ t 2 � = � t 1 � ∩ ∧ ∩ � t 2 � ∩ Constructors have their natural interpretation: D 2 ⊆ � t 1 × × × t 2 � = � t 1 � × × × � t 2 � { f ⊆ D 2 | ( d 1 , d 2 ) ∈ f , d 1 ∈ � t 1 � ⇒ d 2 ∈ � t 2 � } D D ⊆ D � t 1 → → → t 2 � = Then define the subtyping relation as set-containment. def s ≤ t ⇐ ⇒ � s � ⊆ � t � Key idea Do not define what types are logoP7 define how they are related Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 8/27

  23. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Semantic subtyping: formalization First , define an interpretation of types into sets. � � : Types → P ( D ) such that Connectives have their set-theoretic interpretation: ∨ ∪ � ✵ � = ∅ � t 1 ∨ ∨ t 2 � = � t 1 � ∪ ∪ � t 2 � � ¬ ¬ ¬ t � = D\ \ \ � t � � t 1 ∧ ∧ t 2 � = � t 1 � ∩ ∧ ∩ � t 2 � ∩ Constructors have their natural interpretation: D 2 ⊆ D � t 1 × × × t 2 � = � t 1 � × × × � t 2 � D D ⊆ D � t 1 → → → t 2 � = P ( � t 1 � × � t 2 � ) Then define the subtyping relation as set-containment. def s ≤ t ⇐ ⇒ � s � ⊆ � t � Key idea Do not define what types are logoP7 define how they are related Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 8/27

  24. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Semantic subtyping: formalization First , define an interpretation of types into sets. � � : Types → P ( D ) such that Connectives have their set-theoretic interpretation: ∨ ∪ � ✵ � = ∅ � t 1 ∨ ∨ t 2 � = � t 1 � ∪ ∪ � t 2 � � ¬ ¬ ¬ t � = D\ \ \ � t � � t 1 ∧ ∧ t 2 � = � t 1 � ∩ ∧ ∩ � t 2 � ∩ Constructors have their natural interpretation : D 2 ⊆ D � t 1 × × × t 2 � = � t 1 � × × × � t 2 � D D ⊆ D � t 1 → → → t 2 � = P ( � t 1 � × � t 2 � ) Then define the subtyping relation as set-containment. def s ≤ t ⇐ ⇒ � s � ⊆ � t � Key idea Do not define what types are logoP7 define how they are related Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 8/27

  25. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Semantic subtyping: formalization First , define an interpretation of types into sets. � � : Types → P ( D ) such that Connectives have their set-theoretic interpretation: ∨ ∪ � ✵ � = ∅ � t 1 ∨ ∨ t 2 � = � t 1 � ∪ ∪ � t 2 � � ¬ ¬ ¬ t � = D\ \ \ � t � � t 1 ∧ ∧ t 2 � = � t 1 � ∩ ∧ ∩ � t 2 � ∩ Constructors have the same ⊆ as their natural interpretation: D 2 ⊆ D � t 1 × × × t 2 � = � t 1 � × × × � t 2 � D D ⊆ D � t 1 → → → t 2 � = P ( � t 1 � × � t 2 � ) Then define the subtyping relation as set-containment. def s ≤ t ⇐ ⇒ � s � ⊆ � t � Key idea Do not define what types are logoP7 define how they are related Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 8/27

  26. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Semantic subtyping: formalization First , define an interpretation of types into sets. � � : Types → P ( D ) such that Connectives have their set-theoretic interpretation: ∨ ∪ � ✵ � = ∅ � t 1 ∨ ∨ t 2 � = � t 1 � ∪ ∪ � t 2 � � ¬ ¬ ¬ t � = D\ \ \ � t � � t 1 ∧ ∧ ∧ t 2 � = � t 1 � ∩ ∩ � t 2 � ∩ Constructors have the same ⊆ as their natural interpretation: � s 1 × × s 2 � ⊆ � t 1 × × × × t 2 � ⇐ ⇒ � s 1 � × × × � s 2 � ⊆ � t 1 � × × × � t 2 � � s 1 → → s 2 � ⊆ � t 1 → → → → t 2 � ⇐ ⇒ P ( � s 1 � × � s 2 � ) ⊆ P ( � t 1 � × � t 2 � ) Then define the subtyping relation as set-containment. def s ≤ t ⇐ ⇒ � s � ⊆ � t � Key idea Do not define what types are logoP7 define how they are related Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 8/27

  27. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Semantic subtyping: formalization First , define an interpretation of types into sets. � � : Types → P ( D ) such that Connectives have their set-theoretic interpretation: ∨ ∪ � ✵ � = ∅ � t 1 ∨ ∨ t 2 � = � t 1 � ∪ ∪ � t 2 � � ¬ ¬ t � = D\ ¬ \ \ � t � � t 1 ∧ ∧ ∧ t 2 � = � t 1 � ∩ ∩ ∩ � t 2 � Constructors have the same ⊆ as their natural interpretation: � s 1 × × s 2 � ⊆ � t 1 × × × × t 2 � ⇐ ⇒ � s 1 � × × × � s 2 � ⊆ � t 1 � × × × � t 2 � � s 1 → → s 2 � ⊆ � t 1 → → → → t 2 � ⇐ ⇒ P ( � s 1 � × � s 2 � ) ⊆ P ( � t 1 � × � t 2 � ) Then define the subtyping relation as set-containment. def s ≤ t ⇐ ⇒ � s � ⊆ � t � Semantic subtyping [Benzaken, Castagna, Frisch] 1 Gives an interpretation satisfying the above constraints; logoP7 2 Gives an algorithm to decide the induced subtyping relation. Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 8/27

  28. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Polymorphic extension: adding type variables logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 9/27

  29. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Naive solution t ::= B | t × × t | t → × → → t | t ∨ ∨ ∨ t | t ∧ ∧ t | ¬ t | ✵ | ✶ ∧ logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 10/27

  30. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Naive solution t ::= B | t × × × t | t → → → t | t ∨ ∨ ∨ t | t ∧ ∧ ∧ t | ¬ t | ✵ | ✶ | α α α logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 10/27

  31. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Naive solution t ::= B | t × × × t | t → → → t | t ∨ ∨ ∨ t | t ∧ ∧ ∧ t | ¬ t | ✵ | ✶ | α α α Idea: Use the previous relation since is defined for “ground types” Let σ : Vars → ClosedTypes denote ground substitutions. Define: def s ≤ t ⇐ ⇒ ∀ σ . s σ ≤ t σ logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 10/27

  32. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Naive solution t ::= B | t × × × t | t → → → t | t ∨ ∨ ∨ t | t ∧ ∧ ∧ t | ¬ t | ✵ | ✶ | α α α Idea: Use the previous relation since is defined for “ground types” Let σ : Vars → ClosedTypes denote ground substitutions. Define: def s ≤ t ⇐ ⇒ ∀ σ . s σ ≤ t σ or equivalently def s ≤ t ⇐ ⇒ ∀ σ. � s σ � ⊆ � t σ � logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 10/27

  33. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Naive solution t ::= B | t × × × t | t → → → t | t ∨ ∨ ∨ t | t ∧ ∧ t | ¬ t | ✵ | ✶ | α ∧ α α Idea: Use the previous relation since is defined for “ground types” Let σ : Vars → ClosedTypes denote ground substitutions. Define: def s ≤ t ⇐ ⇒ ∀ σ . s σ ≤ t σ or equivalently def s ≤ t ⇐ ⇒ ∀ σ. � s σ � ⊆ � t σ � THIS IS A WRONG WAY: TOO MANY PROBLEMS logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 10/27

  34. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Problems with the naive solution 1 Haruo Hosoya conjectured that deciding ∀ σ . s σ ≤ t σ is at least as hard as solving Diophantine equations logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 11/27

  35. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Problems with the naive solution 1 Haruo Hosoya conjectured that deciding ∀ σ . s σ ≤ t σ is at least as hard as solving Diophantine equations 2 It breaks parametricity: logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 11/27

  36. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Problems with the naive solution 1 Haruo Hosoya conjectured that deciding ∀ σ . s σ ≤ t σ is at least as hard as solving Diophantine equations 2 It breaks parametricity: × α × ¬ ∨ α × ( t × × α α ) ≤ ( t × ×¬ ¬ t ) ∨ ∨ ( α α × × t ) (1) logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 11/27

  37. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Problems with the naive solution 1 Haruo Hosoya conjectured that deciding ∀ σ . s σ ≤ t σ is at least as hard as solving Diophantine equations 2 It breaks parametricity: × α × ¬ ∨ α × ( t × × α α ) ≤ ( t × ×¬ ¬ t ) ∨ ∨ ( α α × × t ) (1) This inclusion holds if and only if t is an indivisible type ( eg. , a singleton or a basic type): logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 11/27

  38. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Problems with the naive solution 1 Haruo Hosoya conjectured that deciding ∀ σ . s σ ≤ t σ is at least as hard as solving Diophantine equations 2 It breaks parametricity: × α × ¬ ∨ α × ( t × × α α ) ≤ ( t × ×¬ ¬ t ) ∨ ∨ ( α α × × t ) (1) This inclusion holds if and only if t is an indivisible type ( eg. , a singleton or a basic type): Property of indivisible types If t is an indivisible type , then for α all possible interpretations of α α α α ¬ t ≤ α α or α α ≤ ¬ ¬ t holds. logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 11/27

  39. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Problems with the naive solution 1 Haruo Hosoya conjectured that deciding ∀ σ . s σ ≤ t σ is at least as hard as solving Diophantine equations 2 It breaks parametricity: × α × ¬ ∨ α × ( t × × α α ) ≤ ( t × ×¬ ¬ t ) ∨ ∨ ( α α × × t ) (1) This inclusion holds if and only if t is an indivisible type ( eg. , a singleton or a basic type): Property of indivisible types If t is an indivisible type , then for α all possible interpretations of α α α α ¬ t ≤ α α or α α ≤ ¬ ¬ t holds. If α α α ≤ ¬ ¬ ¬ t then the left element of the union in (18) suffices; If t ≤ α α , then α α α = ( α α α α \ t ) ∨ ∨ ∨ t . Thus ( t × × α × α α ) = ( t × × × ( α α α \ t )) ∨ ∨ ∨ ( t × × t ). × logoP7 This union is contained component-wise in the one in (18). Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 11/27

  40. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Problems with the naive solution The fact that ( t × × × α α α ) ≤ ( t × × ×¬ ¬ ¬ t ) ∨ ∨ ∨ ( α α α × × × t ) holds if and only if t is indivisible is really catastrophic: logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 12/27

  41. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Problems with the naive solution The fact that ( t × × × α α α ) ≤ ( t × ×¬ × ¬ ¬ t ) ∨ ∨ ∨ ( α α α × × × t ) holds if and only if t is indivisible is really catastrophic: Deciding subtyping needs deciding indivisibility ... which is very hard. logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 12/27

  42. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Problems with the naive solution The fact that ( t × × × α α α ) ≤ ( t × ×¬ × ¬ ¬ t ) ∨ ∨ ∨ ( α α α × × × t ) holds if and only if t is indivisible is really catastrophic: Deciding subtyping needs deciding indivisibility ... which is very hard. This subtyping relation breaks parametricity : by subsumption a function generic in its first argument, becomes generic on its second argument. logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 12/27

  43. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Problems with the naive solution The fact that ( t × × × α α α ) ≤ ( t × × ×¬ ¬ ¬ t ) ∨ ∨ ∨ ( α α α × × × t ) holds if and only if t is indivisible is really catastrophic: Deciding subtyping needs deciding indivisibility ... which is very hard. This subtyping relation breaks parametricity : by subsumption a function generic in its first argument, becomes generic on its second argument. A semantic solution was deemed unfeasible (even w/o arrows) Problem eschewed by resorting to syntactic solutions: [Hosoya, Frisch, Castagna: POPL 05], [Vouillon: POPL 06]. logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 12/27

  44. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Problems with the naive solution The fact that ( t × × × α α α ) ≤ ( t × × ×¬ ¬ ¬ t ) ∨ ∨ ∨ ( α α α × × × t ) holds if and only if t is indivisible is really catastrophic: Deciding subtyping needs deciding indivisibility ... which is very hard. This subtyping relation breaks parametricity : by subsumption a function generic in its first argument, becomes generic on its second argument. A semantic solution was deemed unfeasible (even w/o arrows) Problem eschewed by resorting to syntactic solutions: [Hosoya, Frisch, Castagna: POPL 05], [Vouillon: POPL 06]. logoP7 A SEMANTIC SOLUTION IS POSSIBLE Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 12/27

  45. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 A semantic solution A faint intuition The loss of parametricity is only due to the interpretation of indivisible types, all the rest works (more or less) smoothly logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 13/27

  46. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 A semantic solution A faint intuition The loss of parametricity is only due to the interpretation of indivisible types, all the rest works (more or less) smoothly The crux of the problem is that for an indivisible type i i i i i ≤ α α α or α α α ≤ ¬ ¬ i ¬ i i i validity can stutter from one formula to another, missing in this way the uniformity typical of parametricity logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 13/27

  47. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 A semantic solution A faint intuition The loss of parametricity is only due to the interpretation of indivisible types, all the rest works (more or less) smoothly The crux of the problem is that for an indivisible type i i i i i ≤ α α α or α α α ≤ ¬ ¬ ¬ i i i i validity can stutter from one formula to another, missing in this way the uniformity typical of parametricity The leitmotif of this work A semantic characterization of models where stuttering is absent, should yield a subtyping relation that is: 1 Semantic 2 Intuitive for the programmer logoP7 3 Decidable Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 13/27

  48. ✵ ✶ 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 A semantic solution Rough idea Make indivisible types “splittable” so that type variables can range over strict subsets of every type, indivisible types included. [intuition: interpret all non-empty types into infinite sets] logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 14/27

  49. ✵ ✶ 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 A semantic solution Rough idea Make indivisible types “splittable” so that type variables can range over strict subsets of every type, indivisible types included. [intuition: interpret all non-empty types into infinite sets] Since this cannot be done at syntactic level, move to the semantic one and replace ground substitutions by semantic assignments: η : Vars → P ( D ) logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 14/27

  50. ✵ ✶ 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 A semantic solution Rough idea Make indivisible types “splittable” so that type variables can range over strict subsets of every type, indivisible types included. [intuition: interpret all non-empty types into infinite sets] Since this cannot be done at syntactic level, move to the semantic one and replace ground substitutions by semantic assignments: η : Vars → P ( D ) and now the interpretation function takes an extra parameter � � : Types → P ( D ) Vars → P ( D ) logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 14/27

  51. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 A semantic solution Rough idea Make indivisible types “splittable” so that type variables can range over strict subsets of every type, indivisible types included. [intuition: interpret all non-empty types into infinite sets] Since this cannot be done at syntactic level, move to the semantic one and replace ground substitutions by semantic assignments: η : Vars → P ( D ) and now the interpretation function takes an extra parameter � � : Types → P ( D ) Vars → P ( D ) with � α α � η α = η ( α α ) α � ¬ ¬ ¬ t � η = D\ � t � η ∨ ∧ � t 1 ∨ ∨ t 2 � η = � t 1 � η ∪ � t 2 � η � t 1 ∧ ∧ t 2 � η = � t 1 � η ∩ � t 2 � η � ✵ � η = � ✶ � η = D ∅ logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 14/27

  52. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 A semantic solution Rough idea Make indivisible types “splittable” so that type variables can range over strict subsets of every type, indivisible types included. [intuition: interpret all non-empty types into infinite sets] Since this cannot be done at syntactic level, move to the semantic one and replace ground substitutions by semantic assignments: η : Vars → P ( D ) and now the interpretation function takes an extra parameter � � : Types → P ( D ) Vars → P ( D ) with � α α α � η = η ( α α ) α � ¬ ¬ ¬ t � η = D\ � t � η ∨ ∧ � t 1 ∨ ∨ t 2 � η = � t 1 � η ∪ � t 2 � η � t 1 ∧ ∧ t 2 � η = � t 1 � η ∩ � t 2 � η � ✵ � η = � ✶ � η = D ∅ and such that it satisfies: logoP7 � t 1 → → → s 1 � η ⊆ � t 2 → → → s 2 � η ⇐ ⇒ P ( � t 1 � η × � s 1 � η ) ⊆ P ( � t 2 � η × � s 2 � η ) Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 14/27

  53. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Subtyping relation In this framework the natural definition of subtyping is def s ≤ t ⇐ ⇒ ∀ η . � s � η ⊆ � t � η It “just” remains to find the uniformity condition to avoid stuttering and recover parametricity. logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 15/27

  54. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 The magic property: convexity Consider only models of semantic subtyping in which the following convexity property holds ∀ η. ( � t 1 � η = ∅ or � t 2 � η = ∅ ) ⇐ ⇒ ( ∀ η. � t 1 � η = ∅ ) or ( ∀ η. � t 2 � η = ∅ ) logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 16/27

  55. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 The magic property: convexity Consider only models of semantic subtyping in which the following convexity property holds ∀ η. ( � t 1 � η = ∅ or � t 2 � η = ∅ ) ⇐ ⇒ ( ∀ η. � t 1 � η = ∅ ) or ( ∀ η. � t 2 � η = ∅ ) It avoids stuttering: ∀ η. ( � t ∧ ∧ ∧¬ ¬ α ¬ α α � η = ∅ or � t ∧ ∧ ∧ α α α � η = ∅ ) —that α α ¬ is, ( t ≤ α α or α α ≤ ¬ ¬ t )— holds if and only if t is empty. logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 16/27

  56. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 The magic property: convexity Consider only models of semantic subtyping in which the following convexity property holds ∀ η. ( � t 1 � η = ∅ or � t 2 � η = ∅ ) ⇐ ⇒ ( ∀ η. � t 1 � η = ∅ ) or ( ∀ η. � t 2 � η = ∅ ) It avoids stuttering: ∀ η. ( � t ∧ ∧¬ ∧ ¬ α ¬ α α � η = ∅ or � t ∧ ∧ ∧ α α α � η = ∅ ) —that α α ¬ is, ( t ≤ α α or α α ≤ ¬ ¬ t )— holds if and only if t is empty. There are natural models: all models that map all non-empty types into infinite sets satisfy it [our initial intuition]. logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 16/27

  57. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 The magic property: convexity Consider only models of semantic subtyping in which the following convexity property holds ∀ η. ( � t 1 � η = ∅ or � t 2 � η = ∅ ) ⇐ ⇒ ( ∀ η. � t 1 � η = ∅ ) or ( ∀ η. � t 2 � η = ∅ ) It avoids stuttering: ∀ η. ( � t ∧ ∧ ∧¬ ¬ ¬ α α α � η = ∅ or � t ∧ ∧ ∧ α α α � η = ∅ ) —that α α ¬ is, ( t ≤ α α or α α ≤ ¬ ¬ t )— holds if and only if t is empty. There are natural models: all models that map all non-empty types into infinite sets satisfy it [our initial intuition]. A sound, complete, and terminating decision algorithm: the condition gives us exactly the right conditions needed to reuse the subtyping algorithm devised for ground types. logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 16/27

  58. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 The magic property: convexity Consider only models of semantic subtyping in which the following convexity property holds ∀ η. ( � t 1 � η = ∅ or � t 2 � η = ∅ ) ⇐ ⇒ ( ∀ η. � t 1 � η = ∅ ) or ( ∀ η. � t 2 � η = ∅ ) It avoids stuttering: ∀ η. ( � t ∧ ∧¬ ∧ ¬ α ¬ α α � η = ∅ or � t ∧ ∧ α ∧ α α � η = ∅ ) —that α α ¬ is, ( t ≤ α α or α α ≤ ¬ ¬ t )— holds if and only if t is empty. There are natural models: all models that map all non-empty types into infinite sets satisfy it [our initial intuition]. A sound, complete, and terminating decision algorithm: the condition gives us exactly the right conditions needed to reuse the subtyping algorithm devised for ground types. An intuitive relation: the algorithm returns intuitive results logoP7 (actually, it helps to better understand twisted examples) Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 16/27

  59. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 The magic property: convexity Consider only models of semantic subtyping in which the following convexity property holds ∀ η. ( � t 1 � η = ∅ or � t 2 � η = ∅ ) ⇐ ⇒ ( ∀ η. � t 1 � η = ∅ ) or ( ∀ η. � t 2 � η = ∅ ) It avoids stuttering: ∀ η. ( � t ∧ ∧¬ ∧ ¬ α ¬ α α � η = ∅ or � t ∧ ∧ α ∧ α α � η = ∅ ) —that α α ¬ is, ( t ≤ α α or α α ≤ ¬ ¬ t )— holds if and only if t is empty. There are natural models: all models that map all non-empty types into infinite sets satisfy it [our initial intuition]. A sound, complete, and terminating decision algorithm: the condition gives us exactly the right conditions needed to reuse the subtyping algorithm devised for ground types. An intuitive relation: the algorithm returns intuitive results logoP7 (actually, it helps to better understand twisted examples) Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 16/27

  60. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Examples of subtyping relations logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 17/27

  61. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Examples We can internalize properties such as: ( α → γ ) ∧ ( β → γ ) ∼ α ∨ β → γ logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 18/27

  62. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Examples We can internalize properties such as: ( α → γ ) ∧ ( β → γ ) ∼ α ∨ β → γ or distributivity laws: ( α ∨ β × γ ) ∼ ( α × γ ) ∨ ( β × γ ) logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 18/27

  63. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Examples We can internalize properties such as: ( α → γ ) ∧ ( β → γ ) ∼ α ∨ β → γ or distributivity laws: ( α ∨ β × γ ) ∼ ( α × γ ) ∨ ( β × γ ) and combining them deduce: ( α × γ → δ 1 ) ∧ ( β × γ → δ 2 ) ≤ ( α ∨ β × γ ) → δ 1 ∨ δ 2 logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 18/27

  64. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Examples We can internalize properties such as: ( α → γ ) ∧ ( β → γ ) ∼ α ∨ β → γ or distributivity laws: ( α ∨ β × γ ) ∼ ( α × γ ) ∨ ( β × γ ) and combining them deduce: ( α × γ → δ 1 ) ∧ ( β × γ → δ 2 ) ≤ ( α ∨ β × γ ) → δ 1 ∨ δ 2 Of course the problematic relation never holds, whatever the t : ( t × × α × α α ) �≤ ( t × × ×¬ ¬ ¬ t ) ∨ ∨ ∨ ( α α α × × t ) × logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 18/27

  65. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 We can prove relevant relations on infinite types, eg. , for the type of generic α α α -lists: α -list = µ z . ( α α α α α × × × z ) ∨ ∨ ∨ nil logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 19/27

  66. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 We can prove relevant relations on infinite types, eg. , for the type of generic α α α -lists: α -list = µ z . ( α α α α × α × z ) ∨ × ∨ ∨ nil we can prove that it contains both the α -lists of even length µ z . ( α α α × × × ( α α α × × × z )) ∨ ∨ nil ∨ ≤ ≤ ≤ µ z . ( α α α × × × z ) ∨ ∨ nil ∨ � �� � � �� � α -lists of even length α -lists and the α -lists with of odd length µ z . ( α α α × × × ( α α α × × × z )) ∨ ∨ ( α ∨ α α × × × nil) ≤ ≤ µ z . ( α ≤ α α × × × z ) ∨ ∨ ∨ nil � �� � � �� � α -lists of odd length α -lists logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 19/27

  67. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 We can prove relevant relations on infinite types, eg. , for the type of generic α α α -lists: α α α -list = µ z . ( α α × α × × z ) ∨ ∨ ∨ nil we can prove that it contains both the α -lists of even length µ z . ( α α α × × × ( α α × α × z )) ∨ × ∨ nil ∨ ≤ ≤ ≤ µ z . ( α α α × × × z ) ∨ ∨ ∨ nil � �� � � �� � α -lists of even length α -lists and the α -lists with of odd length µ z . ( α α α × × ( α × α × α × z )) ∨ × ∨ ∨ ( α α α × × × nil) ≤ ≤ µ z . ( α ≤ α α × × × z ) ∨ ∨ ∨ nil � �� � � �� � α -lists of odd length α -lists and that it is itself contained in the union of the two, that is: α α -list ∼ α ∼ ∼ ( µ z . ( α α α × × × ( α α α × × × z )) ∨ ∨ ∨ nil) ∨ ∨ ∨ ( µ z . ( α α α × × × ( α α α × × × z )) ∨ ∨ ∨ ( α α α × × nil)) × logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 19/27

  68. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 We can prove relevant relations on infinite types, eg. , for the type of generic α α α -lists: α -list = µ z . ( α α α α α × × × z ) ∨ ∨ ∨ nil we can prove that it contains both the α -lists of even length µ z . ( α α α × × × ( α α × α × z )) ∨ × ∨ ∨ nil ≤ ≤ ≤ µ z . ( α α α × × × z ) ∨ ∨ ∨ nil � �� � � �� � α -lists of even length α -lists and the α -lists with of odd length µ z . ( α α α × × ( α × α × α × × z )) ∨ ∨ ( α ∨ α × α × × nil) ≤ ≤ µ z . ( α ≤ α α × × × z ) ∨ ∨ ∨ nil � �� � � �� � α -lists of odd length α -lists and that it is itself contained in the union of the two, that is: α α -list ∼ α ∼ ( µ z . ( α ∼ α α × × × ( α α α × × × z )) ∨ ∨ ∨ nil) ∨ ∨ ∨ ( µ z . ( α α α × × × ( α α α × × × z )) ∨ ∨ ∨ ( α α × α × nil)) × logoP7 And we can prove far more complicated relations (see paper). Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 19/27

  69. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Subtyping algorithm logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 20/27

  70. ✵ ✶ 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Subtyping Algorithm: t 1 ≤ t 2 Step 1: Transform the subtyping problem into an emptiness decision problem: t 1 ≤ t 2 ⇐ ⇒ ∀ η. � t 1 � η ⊆ � t 2 � η ⇐ ⇒ ∀ η. � t 1 ∧¬ t 2 � η = ∅ ⇐ ⇒ t 1 ∧¬ t 2 ≤ ✵ logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 21/27

  71. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Subtyping Algorithm: t 1 ≤ t 2 Step 1: Transform the subtyping problem into an emptiness decision problem: t 1 ≤ t 2 ⇐ ⇒ ∀ η. � t 1 � η ⊆ � t 2 � η ⇐ ⇒ ∀ η. � t 1 ∧¬ t 2 � η = ∅ ⇐ ⇒ t 1 ∧¬ t 2 ≤ ✵ Step 2: Put the type whose emptiness is to be decided in disjunctive normal form. � � ℓ ij i ∈ I j ∈ J where a ::= b | t × t | t → t | ✵ | ✶ | α and ℓ ::= a | ¬ a logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 21/27

  72. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Subtyping Algorithm: t 1 ≤ t 2 Step 1: Transform the subtyping problem into an emptiness decision problem: t 1 ≤ t 2 ⇐ ⇒ ∀ η. � t 1 � η ⊆ � t 2 � η ⇐ ⇒ ∀ η. � t 1 ∧¬ t 2 � η = ∅ ⇐ ⇒ t 1 ∧¬ t 2 ≤ ✵ Step 2: Put the type whose emptiness is to be decided in disjunctive normal form. � � ℓ ij i ∈ I j ∈ J where a ::= b | t × t | t → t | ✵ | ✶ | α and ℓ ::= a | ¬ a Step 3: Simplify mixed intersections: Consider each summand of the union: cases such as t 1 × t 2 ∧ t 1 → t 2 or t 1 × t 2 ∧ ¬ ( t 1 → t 2 ) are straightforward. � � � � ¬ a ′ Solve: a i α h ¬ β k j i ∈ I j ∈ J h ∈ H k ∈ K logoP7 where all a are of the same kind. Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 21/27

  73. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Step 4: Eliminate toplevel negative variables. , ⇒ ∀ η. � t { ¬ α ∀ η. � t � η = ∅ ⇐ / α } � η = ∅ so replace ¬ β k for β k (forall k ∈ K ) � � � ¬ a ′ Solve: α h a i j i ∈ I j ∈ J h ∈ H logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 22/27

  74. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Step 4: Eliminate toplevel negative variables. , ⇒ ∀ η. � t { ¬ α ∀ η. � t � η = ∅ ⇐ / α } � η = ∅ so replace ¬ β k for β k (forall k ∈ K ) � � � ¬ a ′ Solve: α h a i j i ∈ I j ∈ J h ∈ H Step 5: Eliminate toplevel variables. � � � t ′ 1 × t ′ t 1 × t 2 α h ≤ 2 t 1 × t 2 ∈ P h ∈ H t ′ 1 × t ′ 2 ∈ N holds if and only if � � � γ 1 h × γ 2 t ′ 1 σ × t ′ t 1 σ × t 2 σ ≤ 2 σ h t 1 × t 2 ∈ P h ∈ H t ′ 1 × t ′ 2 ∈ N logoP7 where σ = { ( γ 1 h × γ 2 h ) ∨ α h / α h } h ∈ H (similarly for arrows) Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 22/27

  75. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Step 6: Eliminate toplevel constructors, memoize, and recurse . Thanks to convexity and (set-theoretic) product decomposition rules � � t ′ 1 × t ′ t 1 × t 2 ≤ (2) 2 t 1 × t 2 ∈ P t ′ 1 × t ′ 2 ∈ N is equivalent to     � � � � ∀ N ′ ⊆ N . t ′  or t ′ t 1 ≤ t 2 ≤    1 2 t 1 × t 2 ∈ P t ′ 1 × t ′ t 1 × t 2 ∈ P t ′ 1 × t ′ 2 ∈ N ′ 2 ∈ N \ N ′ (similarly for arrows) logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 23/27

  76. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Conclusion and New Directions logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 24/27

  77. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Conclusion We presented the first known solution to the problem of defining a semantic subtyping relation for a polymorphic regular tree types. A solution to this problem was considered unfeasible or even impossible. Our solution immediately applies to functional XML processing, but the potential fields of application seem much more numerous. Finally, our work opens both practical and theoretical new directions of research. logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 25/27

  78. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Practical problems New typing possibilities: fun even even even = | Int -> (x mod 2) == 0 | _ -> x Intuitively we want to type it by ( Int → → → Bool ) ∧ ∧ ∧ ( α α α \ \ \ Int → α α α \ \ Int ) \ logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 26/27

  79. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Practical problems New typing possibilities: fun even even even = | Int -> (x mod 2) == 0 | _ -> x Intuitively we want to type it by ( Int → → → Bool ) ∧ ∧ ∧ ( α α α \ \ \ Int → α α α \ \ Int ) \ Local type inference: Let map map : ( α → β ) → α list → β list, map then for map even map even map even we wish to deduce the following type: ( Int list → Bool list ) ∧ ∧ ∧ int lists return bool lists ( ( α α α \ \ \ Int ) list → ( α α \ α \ \ Int ) list ) ∧ ∧ ∧ lists w/o ints return the same type α α \ ∨ ( α α list → (( α α \ \ Int ) ∨ ∨ Bool ) list ) ints in the argument are replaced by bools logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 26/27

  80. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Practical problems New typing possibilities: fun even even even = | Int -> (x mod 2) == 0 | _ -> x Intuitively we want to type it by ( Int → → → Bool ) ∧ ∧ ∧ ( α α α \ \ \ Int → α α α \ \ Int ) \ Local type inference: Let map map : ( α → β ) → α list → β list, map then for map even map even map even we wish to deduce the following type: ( Int list → Bool list ) ∧ ∧ ∧ int lists return bool lists ( ( α α α \ \ \ Int ) list → ( α α \ α \ \ Int ) list ) ∧ ∧ ∧ lists w/o ints return the same type α α \ ∨ ( α α list → (( α α \ \ Int ) ∨ ∨ Bool ) list ) ints in the argument are replaced by bools logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 26/27

  81. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Practical problems New typing possibilities: fun even even even = | Int -> (x mod 2) == 0 | _ -> x Intuitively we want to type it by ( Int → → → Bool ) ∧ ∧ ∧ ( α α α \ \ \ Int → α α α \ \ Int ) \ Local type inference: Let map map : ( α → β ) → α list → β list, map then for map even map even map even we wish to deduce the following type: ( Int list → Bool list ) ∧ ∧ ∧ int lists return bool lists ( ( α α α \ \ \ Int ) list → ( α α \ α \ \ Int ) list ) ∧ ∧ ∧ lists w/o ints return the same type α α \ ∨ ( α α list → (( α α \ \ Int ) ∨ ∨ Bool ) list ) ints in the argument are replaced by bools logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 26/27

  82. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Practical problems New typing possibilities: fun even even even = | Int -> (x mod 2) == 0 | _ -> x Intuitively we want to type it by ( Int → → → Bool ) ∧ ∧ ∧ ( α α α \ \ \ Int → α α α \ \ Int ) \ Local type inference: Let map map : ( α → β ) → α list → β list, map then for map even map even map even we wish to deduce the following type: ( Int list → Bool list ) ∧ ∧ ∧ int lists return bool lists ( ( α α α \ \ \ Int ) list → ( α α \ α \ \ Int ) list ) ∧ ∧ ∧ lists w/o ints return the same type α α \ ∨ ( α α list → (( α α \ \ Int ) ∨ ∨ Bool ) list ) ints in the argument are replaced by bools logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 26/27

  83. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Practical problems New typing possibilities: fun even even even = | Int -> (x mod 2) == 0 | _ -> x Intuitively we want to type it by ( Int → → → Bool ) ∧ ∧ ∧ ( α α α \ \ \ Int → α α α \ \ Int ) \ Local type inference: Let map map : ( α → β ) → α list → β list, map then for map even map even map even we wish to deduce the following type: ( Int list → Bool list ) ∧ ∧ ∧ int lists return bool lists ( ( α α α \ \ \ Int ) list → ( α α \ α \ \ Int ) list ) ∧ ∧ ∧ lists w/o ints return the same type α α \ ∨ ( α α list → (( α α \ \ Int ) ∨ ∨ Bool ) list ) ints in the argument are replaced by bools Cannot be obtained by just instantiating the type of map logoP7 Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 26/27

  84. 1. Motivations – 2. Semantic subtyping 3. Polymorphic extension 4. Examples 5. Subtyping algorithm 6. New directions ICFP’11 Practical problems New typing possibilities: fun even even even = | Int -> (x mod 2) == 0 | _ -> x Intuitively we want to type it by ( Int → → → Bool ) ∧ ∧ ∧ ( α α α \ \ \ Int → α α α \ \ \ Int ) Local type inference: Let map map : ( α → β ) → α list → β list, map then for map even map even map even we wish to deduce the following type: ( Int list → Bool list ) ∧ ∧ ∧ int lists return bool lists ( ( α α α \ \ \ Int ) list → ( α α \ α \ Int ) list ) ∧ \ ∧ ∧ lists w/o ints return the same type α α \ ∨ ( α α list → (( α α \ \ Int ) ∨ ∨ Bool ) list ) ints in the argument are replaced by bools Cannot be obtained by just instantiating the type of map logoP7 No principal typing (needs infinite connectives) Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu Set-theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping 26/27

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend

CSE 331 Generics (Parametric Polymorphism) slides created by Marty Stepp based on materials by

CSE 331 Generics (Parametric Polymorphism) slides created by Marty Stepp based on materials by

CSE 331 Generics (Parametric Polymorphism) slides created by Marty Stepp based on materials by M. Ernst, S. Reges, D. Notkin, R. Mercer, Wikipedia http://www.cs.washington.edu/331/ 1 Parametric polymorphism parametric polymorphism :

429 views • 16 slides
What should I wear? Parametric polymorphism and its decidability Michael B. Gale School of

What should I wear? Parametric polymorphism and its decidability Michael B. Gale School of

Introduction Type reconstruction Hindley-Milner Related work Conclusion References What should I wear? Parametric polymorphism and its decidability Michael B. Gale School of Computer Science University of Nottingham What should I wear?

635 views • 34 slides
Parametric Polymorphism and Abstract Models of Storage (In memory of Christopher Strachey,

Parametric Polymorphism and Abstract Models of Storage (In memory of Christopher Strachey,

Parametric Polymorphism and Abstract Models of Storage (In memory of Christopher Strachey, 1916-1975) Uday S. Reddy 1 1 University of Birmingham Strachey-100, Oxford My introduction to Stracheys ideas Section 1 Introducing the terms

530 views • 40 slides
C++ templates and parametric polymorphism Hayo Thielecke University of Birmingham

C++ templates and parametric polymorphism Hayo Thielecke University of Birmingham

C++ templates and parametric polymorphism Hayo Thielecke University of Birmingham http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~hxt March 16, 2017 Hayo Thielecke University of Birmingham http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~hxt 1 Templates and parametric polymorphism

1.01k views • 79 slides
C++ templates and parametric polymorphism Hayo Thielecke University of Birmingham

C++ templates and parametric polymorphism Hayo Thielecke University of Birmingham

C++ templates and parametric polymorphism Hayo Thielecke University of Birmingham http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~hxt March 10, 2016 Hayo Thielecke University of Birmingham http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~hxt 1 Templates and parametric polymorphism

1.31k views • 92 slides
10/5/09 cs242 Parametric polymorphism Single algorithm may be given many types

10/5/09 cs242 Parametric polymorphism Single algorithm may be given many types

10/5/09 cs242 Parametric polymorphism Single algorithm may be given many types Type variable may be replaced by any type if f::t t then f::Int Int , f::Bool Bool , ... Overloading A

408 views • 9 slides
A functor is a generic module A new form of parametric polymorphism: lambda and type-lambda

A functor is a generic module A new form of parametric polymorphism: lambda and type-lambda

A functor is a generic module A new form of parametric polymorphism: lambda and type-lambda in one mechanism Introduction form is functor (definition form) Generics found across language landscape (wherever large systems are

453 views • 19 slides
Parametric Polymorphism in Java Java Generics KLM Department of Computer Science and Information

Parametric Polymorphism in Java Java Generics KLM Department of Computer Science and Information

Parametric Polymorphism in Java Java Generics KLM Department of Computer Science and Information Systems Birkbeck, University of London keith@dcs.bbk.ac.uk Overview Java Generics Motivation Parameterised classes Parameterised methods

669 views • 51 slides
Realizability Semantics of Parametric Polymorphism, General References, and Recursive Types Lars

Realizability Semantics of Parametric Polymorphism, General References, and Recursive Types Lars

Realizability Semantics of Parametric Polymorphism, General References, and Recursive Types Lars Birkedal IT University of Copenhagen Joint work with Kristian Stvring and Jacob Thamsborg Sep, 2008 Lars Birkedal (ITU) Realizability for ,

681 views • 25 slides
A proof-theoretic foundation for tabled higher-order logic programming Brigitte Pientka

A proof-theoretic foundation for tabled higher-order logic programming Brigitte Pientka

A proof-theoretic foundation for tabled higher-order logic programming Brigitte Pientka Department of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA, 15217, USA A proof-theoretic foundation for tabled higher-order logic programming

1.19k views • 69 slides
Types, Abstraction, and Parametric Polymorphism John C. Reynolds Presented by Dietrich Geisler

Types, Abstraction, and Parametric Polymorphism John C. Reynolds Presented by Dietrich Geisler

Types, Abstraction, and Parametric Polymorphism John C. Reynolds Presented by Dietrich Geisler Abstraction Dietrich Geisler (With apologies to John C. Reynolds) What is Abstraction? 1. Define complex numbers 2. When are they equal? 1.

538 views • 12 slides
Causality: a decision theoretic foundation Pablo Schenone Arizona State University This

Causality: a decision theoretic foundation Pablo Schenone Arizona State University This

Causality: a decision theoretic foundation Pablo Schenone Arizona State University This version: September 6, 2019. First version: September 1, 2017 Abstract We propose a decision theoretic model akin to that of Savage [19] that is

1.07k views • 52 slides
Polymorphism Polymorphism Greek: poly = many , morph = form Definitions: Polymorphism:

Polymorphism Polymorphism Greek: poly = many , morph = form Definitions: Polymorphism:

ML Polymorphism Polymorphism Greek: poly = many , morph = form Definitions: Polymorphism: dictionary.com: the capability of assuming different ML Lectures (continued) forms; the capability of widely varying in form. The occurrence of

222 views • 6 slides
Polymorphism Object-oriented programming Inf1 :: 2008 Object-oriented programming Polymorphism

Polymorphism Object-oriented programming Inf1 :: 2008 Object-oriented programming Polymorphism

Polymorphism Polymorphism Object-oriented programming Inf1 :: 2008 Object-oriented programming Polymorphism Polymorphism Overview Polymorphism is a concept that allows the programmer to program abstractly Objects of a subclass can be treated

463 views • 35 slides
An update on XML types Alain Frisch INRIA Rocquencourt (Cristal project) Links Meeting - Apr.

An update on XML types Alain Frisch INRIA Rocquencourt (Cristal project) Links Meeting - Apr.

An update on XML types Alain Frisch INRIA Rocquencourt (Cristal project) Links Meeting - Apr. 2005 XML types Parametric polymorphism XML types in ML Plan XML types 1 Parametric polymorphism 2 XML types in ML 3 2/24 XML types

631 views • 24 slides
Polymorphism Polymorphism Literally: the ability to assume many forms OOP idea: a

Polymorphism Polymorphism Literally: the ability to assume many forms OOP idea: a

Polymorphism Polymorphism Literally: the ability to assume many forms OOP idea: a superclass reference can refer to many types of subclass objects Each object may behave differently if subclasses override methods Imagine a

309 views • 12 slides
Title: Logical Agents AIMA: Chapter 7 (Sections 7.4 and 7.5) Introduction to

Title: Logical Agents AIMA: Chapter 7 (Sections 7.4 and 7.5) Introduction to

B.Y. Choueiry Title: Logical Agents AIMA: Chapter 7 (Sections 7.4 and 7.5) Introduction to Artificial Intelligence 1 CSCE 476-876, Fall 2020 URL: www.cse.unl.edu/choueiry/F20-476-876 Instructors notes #12 Berthe Y. Choueiry

603 views • 39 slides
Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of

Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of

Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of Philosophy University of Maryland pacuit.org Formulas Formulas are constructed out of 1. Atomic propositions: Capital letters A , B , C , . . . 2.

1.11k views • 56 slides
Logic? Propositional Logic, Truth Tables (Rosen, Sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3) TOPICS

Logic? Propositional Logic, Truth Tables (Rosen, Sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3) TOPICS

Logic? Propositional Logic, Truth Tables (Rosen, Sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3) TOPICS Propositional Logic Logical Operations Equivalences CS 160, Summer Semester 2016 2 Why logic? To reason about programs, What is logic? e.g. Are

424 views • 9 slides
Specification and Analysis of Contracts Lectures 3 and 4 Background: Modal Logics Gerardo

Specification and Analysis of Contracts Lectures 3 and 4 Background: Modal Logics Gerardo

Specification and Analysis of Contracts Lectures 3 and 4 Background: Modal Logics Gerardo Schneider gerardo@ifi.uio.no http://folk.uio.no/gerardo/ Department of Informatics, University of Oslo SEFM School, Oct. 27 - Nov. 7, 2008 Cape Town,

1.54k views • 117 slides
Compacted Binary Trees: A preliminary work on Implication Boolean formulas represented as

Compacted Binary Trees: A preliminary work on Implication Boolean formulas represented as

Compacted Binary Trees: A preliminary work on Implication Boolean formulas represented as Directed Acyclic Graphs Antoine Genitrini joint work with Bernhard Gittenberger, Manuel Kauers and Michael Wallner Sorbonne Universit Laboratoire

1.22k views • 54 slides
Combinatorics, Logic and Probability Logical limit laws for planar graphs and graphs on surfaces

Combinatorics, Logic and Probability Logical limit laws for planar graphs and graphs on surfaces

Combinatorics, Logic and Probability Logical limit laws for planar graphs and graphs on surfaces Marc Noy Universitat Polit` ecnica de Catalunya, Barcelona Barcelona Graduate School of Mathematics A zero-one law G class of labelled graphs G n

499 views • 30 slides
Confluence Let ( A , ) be a rewrite system. b and c A are joinable, if there is an a such

Confluence Let ( A , ) be a rewrite system. b and c A are joinable, if there is an a such

Confluence Let ( A , ) be a rewrite system. b and c A are joinable, if there is an a such that b a c . Notation: b c . The relation is called Church-Rosser, if b c implies b c . confluent, if b a

665 views • 18 slides
Characterization of Logics on Infinite Linear Orderings Thomas Colcombet ACTS 9-13 February

Characterization of Logics on Infinite Linear Orderings Thomas Colcombet ACTS 9-13 February

Characterization of Logics on Infinite Linear Orderings Thomas Colcombet ACTS 9-13 February 2015 Chennai Linear orderings Words Logics Monadic Second-Order Logic Monadic Second-Order Logic Monadic second-order logic (MSO) - quantify over

993 views • 88 slides

More recommend