1 / 42

Existential Types

Existential Types. Robert Harper Fall Semester, 2002. Data Abstraction. Client / implementer model: Implementer provides a set of operations (API) over a representation type . Client sees only the API, and not the representation. Crucial idea: a fixed , but unknown , type.

jocasta
Download Presentation

Existential Types

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Existential Types Robert Harper Fall Semester, 2002

  2. Data Abstraction • Client / implementer model: • Implementer provides a set of operations (API) over a representationtype. • Client sees only the API, and not the representation. • Crucial idea: a fixed, but unknown, type. • “Generic” type, or type variable. • Opaque: underlying representation hidden.

  3. Data Abstraction signature INT_QUEUE = sigtype tval empty : tval insert : int * t -> tval remove : t -> int * t end

  4. Data Abstraction structure IQ :> INT_QUEUE = structtype t = int listval empty = nilval insert = op ::fun remove q = let val x::qr = rev q in (x, rev qr) end end structure Client = struct… IQ.insert … IQ.remove … end

  5. Representation Independence • Informally, implementation can be changed without affecting client. • No need to recompile, unless interface (API) changes. • Client behavior unchanged if new implementation “simulates” the old. • Formally, it’s a matter of parametricity. • “Client code must respect simulations.”

  6. Data Abstraction and Modularity • Data abstraction is a form of modularity. • Implementation-on-interface dependency. • Representation independence ensures separability of client from implementer. • MacQueen 86 argues that there’s more to modularity than just this. • Data abstraction is fundamental. • Previous approaches are inadequate.

  7. Type Theory for ADT’s • Mitchell-Plotkin proposes a formalism for data abstraction. • “Existential types”. • Consistent with CLU, original ML. • Reynolds and Girard anticipated them by about 10 years. • “Universal types”, parametricity. • But didn’t quite take the last step!

  8. A Core Formalism • Types: • Terms:

  9. A Core Formalism • Type variable contexts • Term variable contexts

  10. A Core Formalism • Well-formed types • Well-formed terms

  11. Well-Formed Types

  12. Well-Formed Terms

  13. Well-Formed Terms

  14. Well-Formed Terms

  15. ADT’s as Existentials • An interface is an existential type: • An implementation is a package: • A client uses the ADT via abstype:

  16. ADT’s as Existentials • Representation type is exposed to the implementation! • Operations have type ft1/tgt2. • Rep’n type is hidden from the client! • abstype t with x:{…} in …(client)… end • Client “sees” only type variable t, not its representation.

  17. ADT’s as Existentials • Essentially, the client must be polymorphic in the rep’n type. • 8 t. { emp:t, ins: …, rem:… } !t • Client is generic wrt rep’n type. • Formally, data abstraction comes down to polymorphism. • Representation independence follows from parametricity.

  18. ADT’s as Existentials • In CLU you can only open an explicitly given package! • No variable packages, no computed packages. • Hence no need for existential types per se. • Notation:abstype t iswith x:is M in N end

  19. Universals • The 8! fragment has several names: • System F; • Second Order Typed Lambda Calculus; • Polymorphic Lambda Calculus • Reynolds introduced it as a theory of type polymorphism in PL’s. • Girard introduced it as a tool for proving the consistency of second-order logic.

  20. Existentials • Mitchell and Plotkin formulated the 89! fragment in their study of ADT’s. • But existentials are definable in terms of universals! • Thus, data abstraction boils down to polymorphism. • This was Reynolds’s original contention.

  21. Existentials as Universals • Definability of existentials: • Definability of packages:

  22. Existentials as Universals • Definability of abstype: • Client code is a polymorphic function! • Type: 8 t t2!t, where t does not occur in t. • Systematic reduction to polymorphism. • Analyze via parametricity properties.

  23. The Avoidance Problem • The client’s must avoid the abstract type t. • Result type cannot sensibly involve t. • Is it sensible to reveal the representation? • This is consistent with CLU and ML. • SML ‘90 got this wrong. • In CLU you could substitute the representation type for t, since it’s always explicitly given.

  24. The Avoidance Problem • If the implementation is an explicit package (as it is in CLU), we could replace free t’s by their rep’n type, t. • Philosophically questionable, but harmless. • But what if the implementation is given by an effectful expression? • Cannot extract the rep’n, even if we wanted to!

  25. The Avoidance Problem • In the presence of non-trivial type equality, the type checker must find an equivalent type not involving t. • Sufficient, but not necessary, to normalize the type of the client. • Can induce explosion in type size in the presence of higher kinds.

  26. The Avoidance Problem • In the presence of subtyping the type checker must find the least supertype avoiding t. • Weaken the client type to avoid t. • In the “best possible” way. • But may be no such least supertype! • eg, with type definitions in signatures • Can have incomparable super-types avoiding t.

  27. The Avoidance Problem • The avoidance problem precludes the existence of principal types! • Type checking is incomplete (O’Caml). • Compromises separate compilation. • This is a central problem for module system design. • Def of SML kludges this up using “names”.

  28. Open vs Closed Scope • Existentials provide a closed-scope abstraction mechanism. • The type is held abstract within a specified scope. • Existentials provide no direct access to the abstract type (or its operations). • Not sensible in the presence of effects! • Repn(if moon-is-full then M1 else M2)

  29. Open vs Closed Scope • In contrast ML provides an open scope abstraction mechanism. • S.t refers to the type component of S. • S.t is abstract if S is sealed with a signature that hides t. • With an open scope mechanism a type must be made intrinsically abstract. • Rather than held abstract in the scope of its use.

  30. Open vs Closed Scope • MacQueen 86 argues cogently for an open-scope modularity mechanism. • Preservation of type identity . • “Scope-and-a-half” problem. • Dependency. • Existentials are therefore inadequate.

  31. Preservation of Type Identity • In ML if S is an implementation of SIG, then S.t is an abstract type. • Multiple occurrences of S.t refer to the same unknown type. • If we open a package twice, we get two different abstract types! • Whether nested or disjoint. • A matter of a-conversion.

  32. Scope-And-A-Half • Consider the structure declaration:structure S = struct structure T :> SIG = … val x : T.tendval y : S.T.t = S.x • Note that t declared in T has “two scopes”! • The “rest” of the structure S. • The “rest” of the program.

  33. Scope-and-a-Half • If you try to use abstype you have two (bad) choices. • Open the package T within the rest of the structure, but not the rest of the program. • Open the package T in the rest of the program, but not the rest of the structure. • There is no way to paraphrase in terms of abstype!

  34. Dependency • Consider the functor declaration:functor F(S:>SIG) :> sig val x : S.t end = struct val x : S.t end • The type S.t has “two scopes”: • The result signature of F. • The body of F.

  35. Dependency • There is no way to paraphrase this in terms of abstype! • One scope is a type. • The other scope is a term. • Open scope abstraction solves this problem. • Motivated interest in dependent types, but this ignored abstraction.

  36. Dot Notation • Cardelli-Leroy study dot notation for existentials. • Introduce rep(M) and opns(M), where M is a package. • rep(M) is a type, opns(M) is a value. • When is this sensible? • Whenever it can be re-written using abstype as the sole elim form.

  37. Dot Notation • The fundamental problem is a form of dependency. • M.t is a type. • M is a (fully general) package. • Type equality depends on term equality. • This is absent in the pure existential formalism! • This suggests that the dot notation is, in general, more powerful.

  38. Dot Notation • When is dot notation eliminable? • Essentially, whenever the package is explicitly bound to a variable. • The binding site of the variable is the point at which the package is opened. • Does not address the dependency problem. • Motivated translucent sums, manifest types.

  39. First Class vs Second Class • Existentials provide first-class ADT’s. • An existential type is “just” a type. • Can compute packages conditionally on run-time state. • Can store packages in data structures, reference cells. • Mitchell-Plotkin argue that this is good. • eg, dynamic selection of implementation

  40. First Class vs Second Class • But this implies that the type theory must be relatively weak. • S.t is not well-defined unless S is a value. • Bad: (if moon-is-full then M1 else M2).t • If modules are second class, such examples do not arise! • M.t cannot be ill-defined due to run-time effects! • Assuming no conditional module expressions.

  41. First Class vs Second Class • In the higher-order case we must assume the worst: • (9 t.t)!(9 t.t) may compute type part of result in terms of value part of argument. • fewer type sharing equations! • Perversely, O’Caml uses a first-class type system for second-class modules! • Weaker than necessary. • Almost works in the first-order case (avoidance problem is not solved).

  42. Summary • Existentials model data abstraction through a closed-scope mechanism. • Provides a rigorous foundation for representation independence. • Clear connections with classical PL’s. • But existentials are inadequate for flexible, expressive modularity.

More Related