skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


Title: Graduality and parametricity: together again for the first time
Parametric polymorphism and gradual typing have proven to be a difficult combination, with no language yet produced that satisfies the fundamental theorems of each: parametricity and graduality. Notably, Toro, Labrada, and Tanter (POPL 2019) conjecture that for any gradual extension of System F that uses dynamic type generation, graduality and parametricity are ``simply incompatible''. However, we argue that it is not graduality and parametricity that are incompatible per se, but instead that combining the syntax of System F with dynamic type generation as in previous work necessitates type-directed computation, which we show has been a common source of graduality and parametricity violations in previous work. We then show that by modifying the syntax of universal and existential types to make the type name generation explicit, we remove the need for type-directed computation, and get a language that satisfies both graduality and parametricity theorems. The language has a simple runtime semantics, which can be explained by translation to a statically typed language where the dynamic type is interpreted as a dynamically extensible sum type. Far from being in conflict, we show that the parametricity theorem follows as a direct corollary of a relational interpretation of the graduality property.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1816837 1910522 1453796
PAR ID:
10607496
Author(s) / Creator(s):
 ;  ;  
Publisher / Repository:
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages
Volume:
4
Issue:
POPL
ISSN:
2475-1421
Format(s):
Medium: X Size: p. 1-32
Size(s):
p. 1-32
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; (, Lecture notes in computer science)
    Kiefer, S; Tasson, C. (Ed.)
    This paper considers parametricity and its resulting free theorems for nested data types. Rather than representing nested types via their Church encodings in a higher-kinded or dependently typed extension of System F, we adopt a functional programming perspective and design a Hindley-Milner-style calculus with primitives for constructing nested types directly as fixpoints. Our calculus can express all nested types appearing in the literature, including truly nested types. At the term level, it supports primitive pattern matching, map functions, and fold combinators for nested types. Our main contribution is the construction of a parametric model for our calculus. This is both delicate and challenging: to ensure the existence of semantic fixpoints interpreting nested types, and thus to establish a suitable Identity Extension Lemma for our calculus, our type system must explicitly track functoriality of types, and cocontinuity conditions on the functors interpreting them must be appropriately threaded throughout the model construction. We prove that our model satisfies an appropriate Abstraction Theorem and verifies all standard consequences of parametricity for primitive nested types. 
    more » « less
  2. ; (, Logical methods in computer science)
    This paper considers parametricity and its consequent free theorems for nested data types. Rather than representing nested types via their Church encodings in a higher-kinded or dependently typed extension of System F, we adopt a functional programming perspective and design a Hindley-Milner-style calculus with primitives for constructing nested types directly as fixpoints. Our calculus can express all nested types appearing in the literature, including truly nested types. At the level of terms, it supports primitive pattern matching, map functions, and fold combinators for nested types. Our main contribution is the construction of a parametric model for our calculus. This is both delicate andchallenging. In particular, to ensure the existence of semantic fixpoints interpreting nested types, and thus to establish a suitable Identity Extension Lemma for our calculus, our type system must explicitly track functoriality of types, and cocontinuity conditions on the functors interpreting them must be appropriately threaded throughout the model construction. We also prove that our model satisfies an appropriate Abstraction Theorem, as well as that it verifies all standard consequences of parametricity in the presence of primitive nested types. We give several concrete examples illustrating how our model can be used to derive useful free theorems, including a short cut fusion transformation, for programs over nested types. Finally, we consider generalizing our results to GADTs, and argue that no extension of our parametric model for nested types can give a functorial interpretation of GADTs in terms of left Kan extensions and still be parametric. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; (, Journal of Functional Programming)
    null (Ed.)
    Abstract Gradually typed languages are designed to support both dynamically typed and statically typed programming styles while preserving the benefits of each. Sound gradually typed languages dynamically check types at runtime at the boundary between statically typed and dynamically typed modules. However, there is much disagreement in the gradual typing literature over how to enforce complex types such as tuples, lists, functions and objects. In this paper, we propose a new perspective on the design of runtime gradual type enforcement: runtime type casts exist precisely to ensure the correctness of certain type-based refactorings and optimizations. For instance, for simple types, a language designer might desire that beta-eta equality is valid. We show that this perspective is useful by demonstrating that a cast semantics can be derived from beta-eta equality. We do this by providing an axiomatic account program equivalence in a gradual cast calculus in a logic we call gradual type theory (GTT). Based on Levy’s call-by-push-value, GTT allows us to axiomatize both call-by-value and call-by-name gradual languages. We then show that we can derive the behavior of casts for simple types from the corresponding eta equality principle and the assumption that the language satisfies a property called graduality , also known as the dynamic gradual guarantee. Since we can derive the semantics from the assumption of eta equality, we also receive a useful contrapositive: any observably different cast semantics that satisfies graduality must violate the eta equality. We show the consistency and applicability of our axiomatic theory by proving that a contract-based implementation using the lazy cast semantics gives a logical relations model of our type theory, where equivalence in GTT implies contextual equivalence of the programs. Since GTT also axiomatizes the dynamic gradual guarantee, our model also establishes this central theorem of gradual typing. The model is parameterized by the implementation of the dynamic types, and so gives a family of implementations that validate type-based optimization and the gradual guarantee. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ; (, Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages)
    In gradual typing, different languages perform different dynamic type checks for the same program even though the languages have the same static type system. This raises the question of whether, given a gradually typed language, the combination of the translation that injects checks in well-typed terms and the dynamic semantics that determines their behavior sufficiently enforce the static type system of the language. Neither type soundness, nor complete monitoring, nor any other meta-theoretic property of gradually typed languages to date provides a satisfying answer. In response, we present vigilance, a semantic analytical instrument that defines when the check-injecting translation and dynamic semantics of a gradually typed language are adequate for its static type system. Technically, vigilance asks if a given translation-and-semantics combination enforces the complete run-time typing history of a value, which consists of all of the types associated with the value. We show that the standard combination for so-called Natural gradual typing is vigilant for the standard simple type system, but the standard combination for Transient gradual typing is not. At the same time, the standard combination for Transient is vigilant for a tag type system but the standard combination for Natural is not. Hence, we clarify the comparative type-level reasoning power between the two most studied approaches to sound gradual typing. Furthermore, as an exercise that demonstrates how vigilance can guide design, we introduce and examine a new theoretical static gradual type system, dubbed truer, that is stronger than tag typing and more faithfully reflects the type-level reasoning power that the dynamic semantics of Transient gradual typing can guarantee. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; (, Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science)
    One of the standard correctness criteria for gradual typing is the dynamic gradual guarantee, which ensures that loosening type annotations in a program does not affect its behavior in arbitrary ways. Though natural, prior work has pointed out that the guarantee does not hold of any gradual type system for information-flow control. Toro et al.'s GSLRef language, for example, had to abandon it to validate noninterference. We show that we can solve this conflict by avoiding a feature of prior proposals: type-guided classification, or the use of type ascription to classify data. Gradual languages require run-time secrecy labels to enforce security dynamically; if type ascription merely checks these labels without modifying them (that is, without classifying data), it cannot violate the dynamic gradual guarantee. We demonstrate this idea with GLIO, a gradual type system based on the LIO library that enforces both the gradual guarantee and noninterference, featuring higher-order functions, general references, coarsegrained information-flow control, security subtyping and first-class labels. We give the language a domain-theoretic semantics, using Pitts' framework of relational structures to prove noninterference and the dynamic gradual guarantee. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email