No abstract

Programming language design benefits from constructs for extending the syntax and semantics of a host language. While C's stringbased macros empower programmers to introduce notational shorthands, the parser-level macros of Lisp encourage experimentation with domain-specific languages. The Scheme programming language improves on Lisp with macros that respect lexical scope.The design of Racket-a descendant of Scheme-goes even further with the introduction of a full-fledged interface to the static semantics of the language. A Racket extension programmer can thus add constructs that are indistinguishable from "native" notation, large and complex embedded domain-specific languages, and even optimizing transformations for the compiler backend. This power to experiment with language design has been used to create a series of sub-languages for programming with first-class classes and modules, numerous languages for implementing the Racket system, and the creation of a complete and fully integrated typed sister language to Racket's untyped base language.This paper explains Racket's language extension API via an implementation of a small typed sister language. The new language provides a rich type system that accommodates the idioms of untyped Racket. Furthermore, modules in this typed language can safely exchange values with untyped modules. Last but not least, the implementation includes a type-based optimizer that achieves promising speedups. Although these extensions are complex, their Racket implementation is just a library, like any other library, requiring no changes to the Racket implementation.

No abstract

We present a complete reasoning principle for contextual equivalence in an untyped probabilistic language. The language includes continuous (real-valued) random variables, conditionals, and scoring. It also includes recursion, since the standard call-by-value fixpoint combinator is expressible.We demonstrate the usability of our characterization by proving several equivalence schemas, including familiar facts from lambda calculus as well as results specific to probabilistic programming. In particular, we use it to prove that reordering the random draws in a probabilistic program preserves contextual equivalence. This allows us to show, for example, that (let x = e 1 in let = e 2 in e 0 ) = ctx (let = e 2 in let x = e 1 in e 0 ) (provided x does not occur free in e 2 and does not occur free in e 1 ) despite the fact that e 1 and e 2 may have sampling and scoring effects.

Existing macro systems force programmers to make a choice between clarity of specification and robustness. If they choose clarity, they must forgo validating significant parts of the specification and thus produce low-quality language extensions. If they choose robustness, they must write in a style that mingles the implementation with the specification and therefore obscures the latter. This paper introduces a new language for writing macros. With the new macro system, programmers naturally write robust language extensions using easy-tounderstand specifications. The system translates these specifications into validators that detect misuses-including violations of context-sensitive constraints-and automatically synthesize appropriate feedback, eliminating the need for ad hoc validation code.

No abstract

No abstract

Racket is a large language that is built mostly within itself. Unlike the usual approach taken by non-Lisp languages, the self-hosting of Racket is not a matter of bootstrapping one implementation through a previous implementation, but instead a matter of building a tower of languages and libraries via macros. The upper layers of the tower include a class system, a component system, pedagogic variants of Scheme, a statically typed dialect of Scheme, and more. The demands of this languageconstruction effort require a macro system that is substantially more expressive than previous macro systems. In particular, while conventional Scheme macro systems handle stand-alone syntactic forms adequately, they provide weak support for macros that share information or macros that use existing syntactic forms in new contexts. This paper describes and models features of the Racket macro system, including support for general compile-time bindings, sub-form expansion and analysis, and environment management. The presentation assumes a basic familiarity with Lisp-style macros, and it takes for granted the need for macros that respect lexical scope. The model, however, strips away the pattern and template system that is normally associated with Scheme macros, isolating a core that is simpler, can support pattern and template forms themselves as macros, and generalizes naturally to Racket's other extensions. Macros as a compiler-extension APIThe progression from text pre-processors (such as the C pre-processor) to Lisp macros to Scheme macros is an evolution toward a wider compiler API -one that, at the Scheme end, exposes the compiler's management of lexical context. This widening of the API makes certain language extensions possible that were technically impossible before, such as a local transformer that reliably expands to a reference of an enclosing binding.The classic example of a scope-respecting macro is or, which (in simplified form) takes two expressions. It returns the value of the first expression if it is not #f (i.e., false) or the value of the second expression otherwise: (or e1 e2) ⇒ (let ([tmp e1]) (if tmp tmp e2))