Label dependent lambda calculus and gradual typing

Dependently-typed programming languages are gaining importance, because they can guarantee a wide range of properties at compile time. Their use in practice is often hampered because programmers have to provide very precise types. Gradual typing is a means to vary the level of typing precision between program fragments and to transition smoothly towards more precisely typed programs. The combination of gradual typing and dependent types seems promising to promote the widespread use of dependent types. We investigate a gradual version of a minimalist value-dependent lambda calculus. Compile-time calculations and thus dependencies are restricted to labels, drawn from a generic enumeration type. The calculus supports the usual Pi and Sigma types as well as singleton types and subtyping. It is sufficiently powerful to provide flexible encodings of variant and record types with first-class labels. We provide type checking algorithms for the underlying label-dependent lambda calculus and its gradual extension. The gradual type checker drives the translation into a cast calculus, which extends the original language. The cast calculus comes with several innovations: refined typing for casts in the presence of singletons, type reduction in casts, and fully dependent Sigma types. Besides standard metatheoretical results, we establish the gradual guarantee for the gradual language.

Transitioning from structural to nominal code with efficient gradual typing

Gradual typing is a principled means for mixing typed and untyped code. But typed and untyped code often exhibit different programming patterns. There is already substantial research investigating gradually giving types to code exhibiting typical untyped patterns, and some research investigating gradually removing types from code exhibiting typical typed patterns. This paper investigates how to extend these established gradual-typing concepts to give formal guarantees not only about how to change types as code evolves but also about how to change such programming patterns as well. In particular, we explore mixing untyped "structural" code with typed "nominal" code in an object-oriented language. But whereas previous work only allowed "nominal" objects to be treated as "structural" objects, we also allow "structural" objects to dynamically acquire certain nominal types, namely interfaces. We present a calculus that supports such "cross-paradigm" code migration and interoperation in a manner satisfying both the static and dynamic gradual guarantees, and demonstrate that the calculus can be implemented efficiently.

Gradually structured data

Dynamically-typed languages offer easy interaction with ad hoc data such as JSON and S-expressions; statically-typed languages offer powerful tools for working with structured data, notably algebraic datatypes , which are a core feature of typed languages both functional and otherwise. Gradual typing aims to reconcile dynamic and static typing smoothly. The gradual typing literature has extensively focused on the computational aspect of types, such as type safety, effects, noninterference, or parametricity, but the application of graduality to data structuring mechanisms has been much less explored. While row polymorphism and set-theoretic types have been studied in the context of gradual typing, algebraic datatypes in particular have not, which is surprising considering their wide use in practice. We develop, formalize, and prototype a novel approach to gradually structured data with algebraic datatypes. Gradually structured data bridges the gap between traditional algebraic datatypes and flexible data management mechanisms such as tagged data in dynamic languages, or polymorphic variants in OCaml. We illustrate the key ideas of gradual algebraic datatypes through the evolution of a small server application from dynamic to progressively more static checking, formalize a core functional language with gradually structured data, and establish its metatheory, including the gradual guarantees.

How to evaluate blame for gradual types

Programming language theoreticians develop blame assignment systems and prove blame theorems for gradually typed programming languages. Practical implementations of gradual typing almost completely ignore the idea of blame assignment. This contrast raises the question whether blame provides any value to the working programmer and poses the challenge of how to evaluate the effectiveness of blame assignment strategies. This paper contributes (1) the first evaluation method for blame assignment strategies and (2) the results from applying it to three different semantics for gradual typing. These results cast doubt on the theoretical effectiveness of blame in gradual typing. In most scenarios, strategies with imprecise blame assignment are as helpful to a rationally acting programmer as strategies with provably correct blame.

Localized Lama Gradual Typing

Gradual typing is a modern approach for combining benefits of static typing and dynamic typing. Although scientific research aim for soundness of type systems, many of languages intentionally make their type system unsound for speeding up performance. This paper describes an implementation of a dialect for Lama programming language that supports gradual typing with explicit annotation of dangerous parts of code. The target of current implementation is to grant type safety to programs while keeping their power of untyped expressiveness. This paper covers implementation issues and properties of created type system. Finally, some perspectives on improving precision and soundness of type system are discussed.

Gradual type theory

Gradually typed languages are designed to support both dynamically typed and statically typed programming styles while preserving the benefits of each. Sound gradually typed languages dynamically check types at runtime at the boundary between statically typed and dynamically typed modules. However, there is much disagreement in the gradual typing literature over how to enforce complex types such as tuples, lists, functions and objects. In this paper, we propose a new perspective on the design of runtime gradual type enforcement: runtime type casts exist precisely to ensure the correctness of certain type-based refactorings and optimizations. For instance, for simple types, a language designer might desire that beta-eta equality is valid. We show that this perspective is useful by demonstrating that a cast semantics can be derived from beta-eta equality. We do this by providing an axiomatic account program equivalence in a gradual cast calculus in a logic we call gradual type theory (GTT). Based on Levy’s call-by-push-value, GTT allows us to axiomatize both call-by-value and call-by-name gradual languages. We then show that we can derive the behavior of casts for simple types from the corresponding eta equality principle and the assumption that the language satisfies a property called graduality, also known as the dynamic gradual guarantee. Since we can derive the semantics from the assumption of eta equality, we also receive a useful contrapositive: any observably different cast semantics that satisfies graduality must violate the eta equality. We show the consistency and applicability of our axiomatic theory by proving that a contract-based implementation using the lazy cast semantics gives a logical relations model of our type theory, where equivalence in GTT implies contextual equivalence of the programs. Since GTT also axiomatizes the dynamic gradual guarantee, our model also establishes this central theorem of gradual typing. The model is parameterized by the implementation of the dynamic types, and so gives a family of implementations that validate type-based optimization and the gradual guarantee.

Parameterized cast calculi and reusable meta-theory for gradually typed lambda calculi

The research on gradual typing has led to many variations on the Gradually Typed Lambda Calculus (GTLC) of Siek & Taha (2006) and its underlying cast calculus. For example, Wadler and Findler (2009) added blame tracking, Siek et al. (2009) investigated alternate cast evaluation strategies, and Herman et al. (2010) replaced casts with coercions for space efficiency. The meta-theory for the GTLC has also expanded beyond type safety to include blame safety (Tobin-Hochstadt & Felleisen, 2006), space consumption (Herman et al., 2010), and the gradual guarantees (Siek et al., 2015). These results have been proven for some variations of the GTLC but not others. Furthermore, researchers continue to develop variations on the GTLC, but establishing all of the meta-theory for new variations is time-consuming. This article identifies abstractions that capture similarities between many cast calculi in the form of two parameterized cast calculi, one for the purposes of language specification and the other to guide space-efficient implementations. The article then develops reusable meta-theory for these two calculi, proving type safety, blame safety, the gradual guarantees, and space consumption. Finally, the article instantiates this meta-theory for eight cast calculi including five from the literature and three new calculi. All of these definitions and theorems, including the two parameterized calculi, the reusable meta-theory, and the eight instantiations, are mechanized in Agda making extensive use of module parameters and dependent records to define the abstractions.

Blame and coercion: Together again for the first time

C#, Dart, Pyret, Racket, TypeScript, VB: many recent languages integrate dynamic and static types via gradual typing. We systematically develop four calculi for gradual typing and the relations between them, building on and strengthening previous work. The calculi are as follows: $\lambda{B}$ , based on the blame calculus of Wadler and Findler (2009); $\lambda{C}$ , inspired by the coercion calculus of Henglein (1994); $\lambda{S}$ inspired by the space-efficient calculus of Herman, Tomb, and Flanagan (2006); and $\lambda{T}$ based on the threesome calculus of Siek and Wadler (2010). While $\lambda{B}$ and $\lambda{T}$ are little changed from previous work, $\lambda{C}$ and $\lambda{S}$ are new. Together, $\lambda{B}$ , $\lambda{C}$ , $\lambda{S}$ , and $\lambda{T}$ provide a coherent foundation for design, implementation, and optimization of gradual types. We define translations from $\lambda{B}$ to $\lambda{C}$ , from $\lambda{C}$ to $\lambda{S}$ , and from $\lambda{S}$ to $\lambda{T}$ . Much previous work lacked proofs of correctness or had weak correctness criteria; here we demonstrate the strongest correctness criterion one could hope for, that each of the translations is fully abstract. Each of the calculi reinforces the design of the others: $\lambda{C}$ has a particularly simple definition, and the subtle definition of blame safety for $\lambda{B}$ is justified by the simple definition of blame safety for $\lambda{C}$ . Our calculus $\lambda{S}$ is implementation-ready: the first space-efficient calculus that is both straightforward to implement and easy to understand. We give two applications: first, using full abstraction from $\lambda{C}$ to $\lambda{S}$ to establish an equational theory of coercions; and second, using full abstraction from $\lambda{B}$ to $\lambda{S}$ to easily establish the Fundamental Property of Casts, which required a custom bisimulation and six lemmas in earlier work.