Really Natural Linear Indexed Type Checking

Recent works have shown the power of linear indexed type systems for enforcing complex program properties. These systems combine linear types with a language of type-level indices, allowing more fine-grained analyses. Such systems have been fruitfully applied in diverse domains, including implicit complexity and differential privacy. A natural way to enhance the expressiveness of this approach is by allowing the indices to depend on runtime information, in the spirit of dependent types. This approach is used in DFuzz, a language for differential privacy. The DFuzz type system relies on an index language supporting real and natural number arithmetic over constants and variables. Moreover, DFuzz uses a subtyping mechanism to make types more flexible. By themselves, linearity, dependency, and subtyping each require delicate handling when performing type checking or type inference; their combination increases this challenge substantially, as the features can interact in non-trivial ways. In this paper, we study the type-checking problem for DFuzz. We show how we can reduce type checking for (a simple extension of) DFuzz to constraint solving over a first-order theory of naturals and real numbers which, although undecidable, can often be handled in practice by standard numeric solvers

Type-Based Termination, Inflationary Fixed-Points, and Mixed Inductive-Coinductive Types

Type systems certify program properties in a compositional way. From a bigger program one can abstract out a part and certify the properties of the resulting abstract program by just using the type of the part that was abstracted away. Termination and productivity are non-trivial yet desired program properties, and several type systems have been put forward that guarantee termination, compositionally. These type systems are intimately connected to the definition of least and greatest fixed-points by ordinal iteration. While most type systems use conventional iteration, we consider inflationary iteration in this article. We demonstrate how this leads to a more principled type system, with recursion based on well-founded induction. The type system has a prototypical implementation, MiniAgda, and we show in particular how it certifies productivity of corecursive and mixed recursive-corecursive functions.Comment: In Proceedings FICS 2012, arXiv:1202.317

Practical Subtyping for System F with Sized (Co-)Induction

We present a rich type system with subtyping for an extension of System F. Our type constructors include sum and product types, universal and existential quantifiers, inductive and coinductive types. The latter two size annotations allowing the preservation of size invariants. For example it is possible to derive the termination of the quicksort by showing that partitioning a list does not increase its size. The system deals with complex programs involving mixed induction and coinduction, or even mixed (co-)induction and polymorphism (as for Scott-encoded datatypes). One of the key ideas is to completely separate the induction on sizes from the notion of recursive programs. We use the size change principle to check that the proof is well-founded, not that the program terminates. Termination is obtained by a strong normalization proof. Another key idea is the use symbolic witnesses to handle quantifiers of all sorts. To demonstrate the practicality of our system, we provide an implementation that accepts all the examples discussed in the paper and much more

Trust, but Verify: Two-Phase Typing for Dynamic Languages

A key challenge when statically typing so-called dynamic languages is the ubiquity of value-based overloading, where a given function can dynamically reflect upon and behave according to the types of its arguments. Thus, to establish basic types, the analysis must reason precisely about values, but in the presence of higher-order functions and polymorphism, this reasoning itself can require basic types. In this paper we address this chicken-and-egg problem by introducing the framework of two-phased typing. The first "trust" phase performs classical, i.e. flow-, path- and value-insensitive type checking to assign basic types to various program expressions. When the check inevitably runs into "errors" due to value-insensitivity, it wraps problematic expressions with DEAD-casts, which explicate the trust obligations that must be discharged by the second phase. The second phase uses refinement typing, a flow- and path-sensitive analysis, that decorates the first phase's types with logical predicates to track value relationships and thereby verify the casts and establish other correctness properties for dynamically typed languages