Koka: Programming with Row Polymorphic Effect Types

We propose a programming model where effects are treated in a disciplined way, and where the potential side-effects of a function are apparent in its type signature. The type and effect of expressions can also be inferred automatically, and we describe a polymorphic type inference system based on Hindley-Milner style inference. A novel feature is that we support polymorphic effects through row-polymorphism using duplicate labels. Moreover, we show that our effects are not just syntactic labels but have a deep semantic connection to the program. For example, if an expression can be typed without an exn effect, then it will never throw an unhandled exception. Similar to Haskell's `runST` we show how we can safely encapsulate stateful operations. Through the state effect, we can also safely combine state with let-polymorphism without needing either imperative type variables or a syntactic value restriction. Finally, our system is implemented fully in a new language called Koka and has been used successfully on various small to medium-sized sample programs ranging from a Markdown processor to a tier-splitted chat application. You can try out Koka live at www.rise4fun.com/koka/tutorial.Comment: In Proceedings MSFP 2014, arXiv:1406.153

No value restriction is needed for algebraic effects and handlers

We present a straightforward, sound Hindley-Milner polymorphic type system for algebraic effects and handlers in a call-by-value calculus, which allows type variable generalisation of arbitrary computations, not just values. This result is surprising. On the one hand, the soundness of unrestricted call-by-value Hindley-Milner polymorphism is known to fail in the presence of computational effects such as reference cells and continuations. On the other hand, many programming examples can be recast to use effect handlers instead of these effects. Analysing the expressive power of effect handlers with respect to state effects, we claim handlers cannot express reference cells, and show they can simulate dynamically scoped state

A Comparative Study of Coq and HOL

This paper illustrates the differences between the style of theory mechanisation of Coq and of HOL. This comparative study is based on the mechanisation of fragments of the theory of computation in these systems. Examples from these implementations are given to support some of the arguments discussed in this paper. The mechanisms for specifying definitions and for theorem proving are discussed separately, building in parallel two pictures of the different approaches of mechanisation given by these systems

Encapsulation and Aggregation

A notion of object ownership is introduced as a solution to difficult problems of specifying and reasoning about complex linked structures and of modeling aggregates (composit objects). Syntax and semantics are provided for extending Eiffel with language support for object ownership annotation and checking. The ideas also apply to other OOPLs such as C++

Evaluating Knowledge Representation and Reasoning Capabilites of Ontology Specification Languages

The interchange of ontologies across the World Wide Web (WWW) and the cooperation among heterogeneous agents placed on it is the main reason for the development of a new set of ontology specification languages, based on new web standards such as XML or RDF. These languages (SHOE, XOL, RDF, OIL, etc) aim to represent the knowledge contained in an ontology in a simple and human-readable way, as well as allow for the interchange of ontologies across the web. In this paper, we establish a common framework to compare the expressiveness of "traditional" ontology languages (Ontolingua, OKBC, OCML, FLogic, LOOM) and "web-based" ontology languages. As a result of this study, we conclude that different needs in KR and reasoning may exist in the building of an ontology-based application, and these needs must be evaluated in order to choose the most suitable ontology language(s)

Constraint Handling Rules with Binders, Patterns and Generic Quantification

Constraint Handling Rules provide descriptions for constraint solvers. However, they fall short when those constraints specify some binding structure, like higher-rank types in a constraint-based type inference algorithm. In this paper, the term syntax of constraints is replaced by $\lambda$-tree syntax, in which binding is explicit; and a new $\nabla$ generic quantifier is introduced, which is used to create new fresh constants.Comment: Paper presented at the 33nd International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP 2017), Melbourne, Australia, August 28 to September 1, 2017 16 pages, LaTeX, no PDF figure