research-article

Public Access

Inferring type rules for syntactic sugar

Authors:

Justin Pombrio,

Shriram KrishnamurthiAuthors Info & Claims

PLDI 2018: Proceedings of the 39th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation

Pages 812 - 825

https://doi.org/10.1145/3192366.3192398

Published: 11 June 2018 Publication History

Abstract

Type systems and syntactic sugar are both valuable to programmers, but sometimes at odds. While sugar is a valuable mechanism for implementing realistic languages, the expansion process obscures program source structure. As a result, type errors can reference terms the programmers did not write (and even constructs they do not know), baffling them. The language developer must also manually construct type rules for the sugars, to give a typed account of the surface language. We address these problems by presenting a process for automatically reconstructing type rules for the surface language using rules for the core. We have implemented this theory, and show several interesting case studies.

Supplementary Material

WEBM File (p812-pombrio.webm)

Download
98.82 MB

References

[1]

Ambrose Bonnaire-Sergeant, Rowan Davies, and Sam Tobin-Hochstadt. 2016. Practical Optional Types for Clojure. In European Symposium on Programming Languages and Systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Digital Library

[2]

Eugene Burmako. 2013. Scala macros: let our powers combine!. In Scala Workshop. ACM, New York, NY, USA.

Digital Library

[3]

Benjamin C. Pierce. 2002. Types and Programming Languages. MIT Press.

Digital Library

[4]

Stephen Chang, Alex Knauth, and Ben Greenman. 2017. Type systems as macros. In Principles of Programming Languages. ACM, New York, NY, USA.

Digital Library

[5]

Daniel de Rauglaudre. 2007. Camlp5 - Reference Manua. (2007). http://pauillac.inria.fr/ddr/camlp5/doc/pdf/camlp5-5.06.pdf.

[6]

Matthias Felleisen, Robert Bruce Findler, and Matthew Flatt. 2009. Semantics Engineering with PLT Redex. MIT Press.

Digital Library

[7]

David Fisher and Olin Shivers. 2006. Static analysis for syntax objects. In International Conference on Functional Programming. ACM, New York, NY, USA.

Digital Library

[8]

Matthew Flatt and PLT. June 7, 2010. Reference: Racket. Technical Report PLT-TR2010-1. PLT Inc. racket-lang.org/tr1/.

[9]

Steve Ganz, Amr Sabry, and Walid Taha. 2001. Macros as Multi-Stage Computations: Type-Safe, Generative, Binding Macros in MacroML. In International Conference on Functional Programming. ACM, New York, NY, USA.

Digital Library

[10]

Arjun Guha, Claudiu Saftoiu, and Shriram Krishnamurthi. 2010. The Essence of JavaScript. In European Conference on Object-oriented Programming. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 25.

Digital Library

[11]

Bastiaan Heeren, Jurriaan Hage, and S. Doaitse Swierstra. 2003. Scripting the Type Inference Process. In International Conference on Functional Programming. ACM, NewYork, NY, USA.

Digital Library

[12]

David Herman and Mitchell Wand. 2008. A Theory of Hygienic Macros. In European Symposium on Programming Languages and Systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 48s62.

Digital Library

[13]

Gilles Kahn. 1987. Natural Semantics. In International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Software.

Digital Library

[14]

Florian Lorenzen and Sebastian Erdweg. 2013. Modular and Automated Type-Soundness for Language Extensions. In International Conference on Functional Programming. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 12.

Digital Library

[15]

Florian Lorenzen and Sebastian Erdweg. 2016. Sound type-dependent syntactic language extension. In Principles of Programming Languages. ACM, New York, NY, USA.

Digital Library

[16]

Geoffrey Mainland. 2012. Explicitly Heterogeneous Metaprogramming with MetaHaskell. In International Conference on Functional Programming. ACM, New York, NY, USA.

Digital Library

[17]

Cyrus Omar, Darya Kurilova, Ligia Nistor, Benjamin Chung, Alex Potanin, and Jonathan Aldrich. 2014. Safely Composable Type-Specific Languages. In European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, USA.

Digital Library

[18]

Peyton Jones, Simon. 2003. Haskell 98 Language and Libraries: The Revised Report. Cambridge University Press.

[19]

Gordon D. Plotkin. 1981. A Structured Approach to Operational Semantics. Technical Report DAIMI FN-19. Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.

[20]

Joe Gibbs Politz, Matt Carroll, Benjamin S. Lerner, Justin Pombrio, and Shriram Krishnamurthi. 2012. A Tested Semantics for Getters, Setters, and Eval in JavaScript. In Dynamic Languages Symposium.

Digital Library

[21]

Joe Gibbs Politz, Alejandro Martinez, Matthew Milano, Sumner Warren, Daniel Patterson, Junsong Li, Anand Chitipothu, and Shriram Krishnamurthi. 2013. Python: The Full Monty: A Tested Semantics for the Python Programming Language. In ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages and Applications. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 217s232.

Digital Library

[22]

Justin Pombrio and Shriram Krishnamurthi. 2014. Resugaring: Lifting Evaluation Sequences through Syntactic Sugar. In Programming Languages Design and Implementation. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 361-371.

Digital Library

[23]

Justin Pombrio, Shriram Krishnamurthi, and Mitchell Wand. 2017. Inferring Scope through Syntactic Sugar. In International Conference on Functional Programming. ACM, New York, NY, USA.

Digital Library

[24]

Alejandro Serrano and Jurriaan Hage. 2016. Type Error Diagnosis for Embedded DSLs by Two-Stage Specialized Type Rules. In European Symposium on Programming Languages and Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA.

Digital Library

[25]

Tim Sheard and Simon Peyton Jones. 2002. Template Metaprogramming for Haskell. In ACM SIGPLAN Haskell Workshop. ACM, New York, NY, USA.

Digital Library

[26]

Joel Spolsky. 2002. The Law of Leaky Abstractions. Blog post: Joel on Software. (2002). https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/11/11/the-law-of-leaky-abstractions/.

[27]

Paul Stansifer and Mitchell Wand. 2014. Romeo: a System For More Flexible Binding-Safe Programming. In International Conference on Functional Programming. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 53s65.

Digital Library

[28]

Sam Tobin-Hochstadt, Vincent St-Amour, Ryan Culpepper, Matthew Flatt, and Matthias Felleisen. 2011. Languages as Libraries. In Programming Languages Design and Implementation. ACM, New York, NY, USA.

Digital Library

Cited By

Crichton WKrishnamurthi S(2024)A Core Calculus for Documents: Or, Lambda: The Ultimate DocumentProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36328658:POPL(667-694)Online publication date: 5-Jan-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3632865
Koppel JKearl JSolar-Lezama A(2022)Automatically deriving control-flow graph generators from operational semanticsProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/35476486:ICFP(742-771)Online publication date: 31-Aug-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3547648
Omar CAldrich J(2018)Reasonably programmable literal notationProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/32368012:ICFP(1-32)Online publication date: 30-Jul-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3236801

Index Terms

Inferring type rules for syntactic sugar
1. Software and its engineering
  1. Software notations and tools
    1. General programming languages
      1. Language types
        Extensible languages

Recommendations

Resugaring: lifting evaluation sequences through syntactic sugar
PLDI '14: Proceedings of the 35th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation

Syntactic sugar is pervasive in language technology. It is used to shrink the size of a core language; to define domain-specific languages; and even to let programmers extend their language. Unfortunately, syntactic sugar is eliminated by transformation,...
Inferring scope through syntactic sugar

Many languages use syntactic sugar to define parts of their surface language in terms of a smaller core. Thus some properties of the surface language, like its scoping rules, are not immediately evident. Nevertheless, IDEs, refactorers, and other tools ...
Inferring type rules for syntactic sugar
PLDI '18

Type systems and syntactic sugar are both valuable to programmers, but sometimes at odds. While sugar is a valuable mechanism for implementing realistic languages, the expansion process obscures program source structure. As a result, type errors can ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

PLDI 2018: Proceedings of the 39th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation

June 2018

825 pages

ISBN:9781450356985

DOI:10.1145/3192366

General Chair:
Jeffrey S. Foster
University of Maryland at College Park, USA
,
Program Chair:
Dan Grossman
University of Washington, USA

ACM SIGPLAN Notices Volume 53, Issue 4
PLDI '18
April 2018
834 pages
ISSN:0362-1340
EISSN:1558-1160
DOI:10.1145/3296979
Editor:
Matthew Fluet
Rodchester Institude of Technology
Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2018 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Sponsors

SIGPLAN: ACM Special Interest Group on Programming Languages

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 11 June 2018

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Badges

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

National Science Foundation

Conference

PLDI '18

Sponsor:

SIGPLAN

PLDI '18: ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation

June 18 - 22, 2018

PA, Philadelphia, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 406 of 2,067 submissions, 20%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

3
Total Citations
View Citations
619
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)94
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)19

Reflects downloads up to 14 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Crichton WKrishnamurthi S(2024)A Core Calculus for Documents: Or, Lambda: The Ultimate DocumentProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36328658:POPL(667-694)Online publication date: 5-Jan-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3632865
Koppel JKearl JSolar-Lezama A(2022)Automatically deriving control-flow graph generators from operational semanticsProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/35476486:ICFP(742-771)Online publication date: 31-Aug-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3547648
Omar CAldrich J(2018)Reasonably programmable literal notationProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/32368012:ICFP(1-32)Online publication date: 30-Jul-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3236801

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents