In this lecture we study types and relations in types in programming languages, and discuss the motivation for having types.
Next we look at the way type systems are formalized. In particular, we look at the inference rules in the ChocoPy reference manual.
Finally, we start our study of the Statix meta-language for the specification of type systems. Ending with a demonstration of the Chicago project (available on github), as an example of the use of Statix.
There are no papers that give concrete examples of Statix code, but the PEPM 2016 paper gives a good introduction to the use of constraints and scope graphs, albeit in a somewhat more limited language than Statix.
Statix Tutorial
This is a recording of a tutorial on Statix at the PLDI conference.
References
-
Scope graphs are a promising generic framework to model the binding structures of programming languages, bridging formalization and implementation, supporting the definition of type checkers and the automation of type safety proofs. However, previous work on scope graphs has been limited to simple, nominal type systems. In this paper, we show that viewing scopes as types enables us to model the internal structure of types in a range of non-simple type systems (including structural records and generic classes) using the generic representation of scopes. Further, we show that relations between such types can be expressed in terms of generalized scope graph queries. We extend scope graphs with scoped relations and queries. We introduce Statix, a new domain-specific meta-language for the specification of static semantics, based on scope graphs and constraints. We evaluate the scopes as types approach and the Statix design in case studies of the simply-typed lambda calculus with records, System F, and Featherweight Generic Java.
-
In previous work, we introduced scope graphs as a formalism for describing program binding structure and performing name resolution in an AST-independent way. In this paper, we show how to use scope graphs to build static semantic analyzers. We use constraints extracted from the AST to specify facts about binding, typing, and initialization. We treat name and type resolution as separate building blocks, but our approach can handle language constructs -- such as record field access -- for which binding and typing are mutually dependent. We also refine and extend our previous scope graph theory to address practical concerns including ambiguity checking and support for a wider range of scope relationships. We describe the details of constraint generation for a model language that illustrates many of the interesting static analysis issues associated with modules and records.
-
We describe a language-independent theory for name binding and resolution, suitable for programming languages with complex scoping rules including both lexical scoping and modules. We formulate name resolution as a two-stage problem. First a language-independent scope graph is constructed using language-specific rules from an abstract syntax tree. Then references in the scope graph are resolved to corresponding declarations using a language-independent resolution process. We introduce a resolution calculus as a concise, declarative, and languageindependent specification of name resolution. We develop a resolution algorithm that is sound and complete with respect to the calculus. Based on the resolution calculus we develop language-independent definitions of α-equivalence and rename refactoring. We illustrate the approach using a small example language with modules. In addition, we show how our approach provides a model for a range of name binding patterns in existing languages.