A long-standing shortcoming of statically-typed functional languages is that type checking does not rule out pattern-matching failures (run-time match exceptions). Refinement types distinguish different values of datatypes; if a program annotated with refinements passes type checking, pattern-matching failures become impossible. Unfortunately, refinement is a monolithic property of a type, exacerbating the difficulty of adding refinement types to nontrivial programs.
Gradual typing has explored how to incrementally move between static typing and dynamic typing. We develop a type system with gradual sums that combines refinement with imprecision. Then, we develop a bidirectional version of the type system, which rules out excessive imprecision, and give a type-directed translation to a target language with explicit casts. We prove that the static sublanguage cannot have match failures, that a well-typed program remains well-typed if its type annotations are made less precise, and that making annotations less precise causes target programs to fail later. Several of these results correspond to criteria for gradual typing given by Siek et al. (2015).
Fri 20 JanDisplayed time zone: Amsterdam, Berlin, Bern, Rome, Stockholm, Vienna change
14:20 - 16:00
Gradual Typing and ContractsPOPL at Auditorium
Chair(s): Ronald Garcia University of British Columbia
|Big Types in Little Runtime: Open World Soundness and Collaborative Blame for Gradual Type System|
Michael Vitousek , Cameron Swords Indiana University, Jeremy G. Siek Indiana University Bloomington
|Gradual Refinement Types|
Nicolás Lehmann , Éric Tanter University of Chile, ChileLink to publication DOI Pre-print
|Automatically Generating the Dynamic Semantics of Gradually Typed Languages|
Matteo Cimini Indiana University, USA, Jeremy G. Siek Indiana University Bloomington
|Sums of Uncertainty: Refinements go gradual|
Khurram A. Jafery University of British Columbia, Jana Dunfield University of British Columbia