Linear Haskell: practical linearity in a higher-order polymorphic language

Linear type systems have a long and storied history, but not a clear path forward to integrate with existing languages such as OCaml or Haskell. In this paper, we study a linear type system designed with two crucial properties in mind: backwards-compatibility and code reuse across linear and non-linear users of a library. Only then can the benefits of linear types permeate conventional functional programming. Rather than bifurcate types into linear and non-linear counterparts, we instead attach linearity to function arrows. Linear functions can receive inputs from linearly-bound values, but can also operate over unrestricted, regular values. To demonstrate the efficacy of our linear type system - both how easy it can be integrated in an existing language implementation and how streamlined it makes it to write programs with linear types - we implemented our type system in GHC, the leading Haskell compiler, and demonstrate two kinds of applications of linear types: mutable data with pure interfaces; and enforcing protocols in I/O-performing functions

Semantic Domains and Denotational Semantics

The theory of domains was established in order to have appropriate spaces on which to define semantic functions for the denotational approach to programming-language semantics. There were two needs: first, there had to be spaces of several different types available to mirror both the type distinctions in the languages and also to allow for different kinds of semantical constructs - especially in dealing with languages with side effects; and second, the theory had to account for computability properties of functions - if the theory was going to be realistic. The first need is complicated by the fact that types can be both compound (or made up from other types) and recursive (or self-referential), and that a high-level language of types and a suitable semantics of types is required to explain what is going on. The second need is complicated by these complications of the semantical definitions and the fact that it has to be checked that the level of abstraction reached still allows a precise definition of computability

Abstract State Machines 1988-1998: Commented ASM Bibliography

An annotated bibliography of papers which deal with or use Abstract State Machines (ASMs), as of January 1998.Comment: Also maintained as a BibTeX file at http://www.eecs.umich.edu/gasm

Theory and Practice of Action Semantics

Action Semantics is a framework for the formal descriptionof programming languages. Its main advantage over other frameworksis pragmatic: action-semantic descriptions (ASDs) scale up smoothly torealistic programming languages. This is due to the inherent extensibilityand modifiability of ASDs, ensuring that extensions and changes tothe described language require only proportionate changes in its description.(In denotational or operational semantics, adding an unforeseenconstruct to a language may require a reformulation of the entire description.)After sketching the background for the development of action semantics,we summarize the main ideas of the framework, and provide a simpleillustrative example of an ASD. We identify which features of ASDsare crucial for good pragmatics. Then we explain the foundations ofaction semantics, and survey recent advances in its theory and practicalapplications. Finally, we assess the prospects for further developmentand use of action semantics.The action semantics framework was initially developed at the Universityof Aarhus by the present author, in collaboration with David Watt(University of Glasgow). Groups and individuals scattered around fivecontinents have since contributed to its theory and practice

Designing equivalent semantic models for process creation

Operational and denotational semantic models are designed for languages with process creation, and the relationships between the two semantics are investigated. The presentation is organized in four sections dealing with a uniform and static, a uniform and dynamic, a nonuniform and static, and a nonuniform and dynamic language, respectively. Here uniform/nonuniform refers to a language with uninterpreted/interpreted elementary actions, and static/dynamic to the distinction between languages with a fixed/growing number of parallel processes. The contrast between uniform and nonuniform is reflected in the use of linear time versus branching time models., the latter employing a version of Plotkin's resumptions. The operational semantics make use of Hennessy and Plotkin's transition systems. All models are built on metric structures, and involve continuations in an essential way. The languages studied are abstractions of the parallel object-oriented language POOL for which we have designed separate operational and denotational semantics in earlier work. The paper provides a full analysis of the relationship between the two semantics for these abstractions. Technically, a key role is played by a new operator which is able to decide dynamically whether it should act as sequential or parallel composition

Action semantics of unified modeling language

The Uni ed Modeling Language or UML, as a visual and general purpose modeling language, has been around for more than a decade, gaining increasingly wide application and becoming the de-facto industrial standard for modeling software systems. However, the dynamic semantics of UML behaviours are only described in natural languages. Speci cation in natural languages inevitably involves vagueness, lacks reasonability and discourages mechanical language implementation. Such semi-formality of UML causes wide concern for researchers, including us. The formal semantics of UML demands more readability and extensibility due to its fast evolution and a wider range of users. Therefore we adopt Action Semantics (AS), mainly created by Peter Mosses, to formalize the dynamic semantics of UML, because AS can satisfy these needs advantageously compared to other frameworks. Instead of de ning UML directly, we design an action language, called ALx, and use it as the intermediary between a typical executable UML and its action semantics. ALx is highly heterogeneous, combining the features of Object Oriented Programming Languages, Object Query Languages, Model Description Languages and more complex behaviours like state machines. Adopting AS to formalize such a heterogeneous language is in turn of signi cance in exploring the adequacy and applicability of AS. In order to give assurance of the validity of the action semantics of ALx, a prototype ALx-to-Java translator is implemented, underpinned by our formal semantic description of the action language and using the Model Driven Approach (MDA). We argue that MDA is a feasible way of implementing this source-to-source language translator because the cornerstone of MDA, UML, is adequate to specify the static aspect of programming languages, and MDA provides executable transformation languages to model mapping rules between languages. We also construct a translator using a commonly-used conventional approach, in i which a tool is employed to generate the lexical scanner and the parser, and then other components including the type checker, symbol table constructor, intermediate representation producer and code generator, are coded manually. Then we compare the conventional approach with the MDA. The result shows that MDA has advantages over the conventional method in the aspect of code quality but is inferior to the latter in terms of system performance

Verification of floating point programs

In this thesis we present an approach to automated verification of floating point programs. Existing techniques for automated generation of correctness theorems are extended to produce proof obligations for accuracy guarantees and absence of floating point exceptions. A prototype automated real number theorem prover is presented, demonstrating a novel application of function interval arithmetic in the context of subdivision-based numerical theorem proving. The prototype is tested on correctness theorems for two simple yet nontrivial programs, proving exception freedom and tight accuracy guarantees automatically. The prover demonstrates a novel application of function interval arithmetic in the context of subdivision-based numerical theorem proving. The experiments show how function intervals can be used to combat the information loss problems that limit the applicability of traditional interval arithmetic in the context of hard real number theorem proving