Transcript Type Inference II David Walker CS 510

Type Inference II
David Walker
CS 510
ML-style Polymorphism
2 characteristics:

prenex (let) polymorphism
let f : all [a,b,c].t = ... in e
 polymorphic quantifiers appear in outermost
positions
 polymorphic values can’t be arguments/results
of functions, can’t be stored
 reason: completeness of type inference


value restriction
let x = v in e
 reason: soundness of type inference

Value restriction
Polymorphic generalization may occur
over values only
let x : (all [a]. (a -> a) ref) = ref (fn x => x) in
x := (fn x => x + 1);
(!x) true (* error *)
not a value
Generalization over non-values causes
unsoundness
Functions, lists, pairs,data cons. are values
 references, expressions that raise exns,
perform I/O, function applications are not

1st-Class Polymorphism
Question:

where to generalize values with
(monomorphic) schematic types to
polymorphic types

eg: fn(x).fn(y).y has type





all [a].all [b]. a -> b -> b
all [a]. a -> (all [b] . b -> b)
which one do we pick?
the first can be an argument to
• (int -> bool -> bool) -> bool
the second returns polymorphic functions z that can
be applied to values with different types
• z true; z 3
Prenex Polymorphism
Solution:

restrict to prenex quantification (type
inference for the general case undecideable)

generalize at let-bound values:
G |- v : t, q
(I,q) -> (S,{})
a1,...,an = FV(S(t)) - FV(G)
G,x:all[a1,...,an].S(t) |- e : t’,q’
------------------------------------------------------------G |- let x = v in e : t’,q’

a polymorphic value is always instantiated:
G(f) = all[a1,...,an].t (a1,...,an are fresh)
----------------------------------------------------G |- f : t,{}
Advanced Type Inf
ML pushes the limit of complete type inf.

1st-class universal and existential poly, subtyping,
bounded quantification make complete type
inference impossible
Nex step: Require some type annotations
goal: require annotations where useful as
documentation
 goal: omit type annotations where they are
“obvious” and common
 Most languages (Java, C++, C) require some type
annotations anyway

Some Stats [PT 98]
Type instantiation occurs all the time

every third line of code
Anonymous function declarations
occurs fairly often

1/10 lines to 1/100 lines depending on style
Local variable declarations

1/12 lines
Local functions bound to variables

1/66 lines
Consequences
Type instantiation is the first priority

every third line of ML-style code
Anonymous function declarations are
the next priority

1/10 lines to 1/100 lines depending on style
Local variable declarations would be
nice
1/12 lines
 1/66 lines (functions)

Bi-directional Type Inf
Two interacting judgements

type checking
G |- e <= t
 we can check that e has the type t
 type t is an input to the judgement


type synthesis
G |- e => t
 we can synthesize the most general type t from
the expression e and context G
 type t is an output of the judgement
 Note: we have been doing type synthesis all
along

More on Bi-Directional TI
..... on your next homework!
End!