Compilation of extended recursion in call-by-value functional languages

Hirschowitz, Tom; Leroy, Xavier; Wells, J. B.

doi:10.1007/s10990-009-9042-z

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For a slightly more involved example, we consider in this subsection the sharing -calculus [Accattoli 2019, §4.1] (but see also [Hirschowitz et al 2009;Sewell et al 2008]). Following Accattoli, the syntax is given by…”

Section: Application: Binding Contextsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A unified treatment of structural definitions on syntax for capture-avoiding substitution, context application, named substitution, partial differentiation, and so on

Hirschowitz¹,

Lafont²

2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We introduce a category-theoretic abstraction of a syntax with auxiliary functions, called an admissible monad morphism. Relying on an abstract form of structural recursion, we then design generic tools to construct admissible monad morphisms from basic data. These tools automate ubiquitous standard patterns like (1) defining auxiliary functions in successive, potentially dependent layers, and (2) proving properties of auxiliary functions by induction on syntax. We cover significant examples from the literature, including the standard lambda-calculus with capture-avoiding substitution, a lambda-calculus with binding evaluation contexts, the lambda-mu-calculus with named substitution, and the differential lambda-calculus.

show abstract

Section: Application: Binding Contextsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A unified treatment of structural definitions on syntax for capture-avoiding substitution, context application, named substitution, partial differentiation, and so on

Hirschowitz¹,

Lafont²

2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are many techniques for implementing recursive definitions efficiently and effectively in call-by-value functional languages: among them, it is worth noting the 'in-place update tricks' outlined by Guy Cousineau et al (Cousineau et al 1987), and the more recent techniques due to Gérard Boudol and Pascal Zimmer (Boudol and Zimmer 2002), and Tom Hirschowitz et al (Hirschowitz et al 2003), or Peter Landin's classical trick (Landin 1964).…”

Section: Typing the Imperative Encodingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

iRho: an imperative rewriting calculus

Liquori¹,

Serpette²

2008

Math. Struct. Comp. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We propose an imperative version of the Rewriting Calculus, a calculus based on pattern matching, pattern abstraction and side effects, which we call iRho. We formulate both a static and big-step call-by-value operational semantics of iRho. The operational semantics is deterministic, and immediately suggests how an interpreter for the calculus may be built. The static semantics is given using a first-order type system based on a form of product types, which can be assigned to term-like structures (that is, records). The calculus isà la Church, that is, pattern abstractions are decorated with the types of the free variables of the pattern. iRho is a good candidate for the core of a pattern-matching imperative language, where a (monomorphic) typed store can be safely manipulated and where fixed points are built into the language itself. Properties such as determinism of the interpreter and subject-reduction have been completely checked using a machine-assisted approach with the Coq proof assistant. Progress and decidability of type checking are proved using pen and paper. IntroductionThe study of rewriting-based languages (such as Elan Although rewriting-based languages are less popular than object-oriented languages such as Java (Sun 2005) and C# (Microsoft 2005) for ordinary programming, they can serve as common typed intermediate languages for implementing compilers for rewritingbased, functional, object-oriented, logic, and other high-level modern languages (Cirstea et al. 2001a;Cirstea et al. 2002;Cirstea et al. 2004).Pattern matching has been used widely in functional and logic programming (for example, in ML (Milner et al. 1997;Cristal Team 2005), Haskell (Jones 2003), Scheme (R. Kelsey 1998), Curry (Hanus 1997) and Prolog (Kowalski 1979)), but it has generally been considered to be a convenient mechanism for expressing complex requirements about the function's argument, rather than as a basis for an ad hoc paradigm of computation.One of the main advantages of rewriting-based languages is pattern matching, which allows one to discriminate between alternatives. These languages permit non-determinism in the sense that they can represent a collection of results. That is, pattern matching need not be exclusive, multiple branches can be 'fired' simultaneously. An empty collection of L. Liquori and B. P. Serpette 2 results represents an application failure, a singleton represents a deterministic result, and a collection with more than one element represents a non-deterministic choice between the elements of the collection.This feature highlights a difference compared with those functional languages featuring pattern matching, such as ML, Haskell and Scheme. It shares some similarities with backtracking and exhaustive proof search in logic languages like Prolog. It is possible to make a pair of two functions having the same pattern, and when the pair is applied to an argument, both functions will be fired. Optimistic and pessimistic operational semantics † , with a fixed strategy, can then be imposed on the langua...

show abstract

“…The basis of their work is also a call-by-value calculus where evaluated recursive let-bindings take on the role of a dynamic heap, where subsequent bindings in a recursive group can see the result of previous ones, and where variables count as values (although not distinctively weak ones) (Hirschowitz et al 2003). Like us they are also able to avoid indirections.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When the real value of such a binding eventually becomes available, its topmost node is copied over to the pre-allocated block, which then takes over the role of the "real" value of the binding. Because run-time accesses to an uninitialized dummy block cannot be distinguished from valid ones, compile-time restrictions must be imposed on the right-hand sides of bindings with forward references to them; in (Hirschowitz et al 2003) this is assumed to be taken care of by a static analysis similar to the one reported in (Hirschowitz and Leroy 2002). The pre-allocation method also requires the sizes of objects to be statically known, which can be a severe restriction if one intends to define dynamic arrays, records coerced by subtyping, or function closures in recursive bindings.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unrestricted pure call-by-value recursion

Nordlander

Carlsson

Gill

2008

Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on ML

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Call-by-value languages commonly restrict recursive definitions by only allowing functions and syntactically explicit values in the right-hand sides. As a consequence, some very appealing programming patterns that work well in lazy functional languages are hard to apply in a call-by-value setting, even though they might not be using laziness for any other purpose than to enable the desired form of recursion.In this paper we present an operational semantics as well as a straightforward implementation technique for unrestricted recursion under pure call-by-value. On that basis we are able to demonstrate that highly recursive programming idioms such as combinator-based parsing are indeed compatible with call-by-value evaluation.

show abstract

Compilation of extended recursion in call-by-value functional languages

Cited by 6 publications

References 28 publications

A unified treatment of structural definitions on syntax for capture-avoiding substitution, context application, named substitution, partial differentiation, and so on

A unified treatment of structural definitions on syntax for capture-avoiding substitution, context application, named substitution, partial differentiation, and so on

iRho: an imperative rewriting calculus

Unrestricted pure call-by-value recursion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About