GATE: Gradual Effect Types

Wadler, Philip

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-89159-6_21

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The academic field is mainly dedicated to combining gradual typing with other language features, including both expressiveness (object (Siek & Taha, 2007;Chung et al, 2018), effect (Bañados Schwerter et al, 2014Wadler, 2021), polymorphism (Ahmed et al, 2011(Ahmed et al, , 2017Igarashi et al, 2017), set theoretic types (Toro & Tanter, 2017;Castagna et al, 2019)), and implementation optimization (Pycket (Bauman et al, 2015), Grift (Kuhlenschmidt et al, 2019)).…”

Section: Gradual Typingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Static Blame for gradual typing

SU,

CHEN,

YANHUI

et al. 2024

J. Funct. Prog.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gradual typing integrates static and dynamic typing by introducing a dynamic type and a consistency relation. A problem of gradual type systems is that dynamic types can easily hide erroneous data flows since consistency relations are not transitive. Therefore, a more rigorous static check is required to reveal these hidden data flows statically. However, in order to preserve the expressiveness of gradually typed languages, static checks for gradually typed languages cannot simply reject programs with potentially erroneous data flows. By contrast, a more reasonable request is to show how these data flows can affect the execution of the program. In this paper, we propose and formalize Static Blame, a framework that can reveal hidden data flows for gradually typed programs and establish the correspondence between static-time data flows and runtime behavior. With this correspondence, we build a classification of potential errors detected from hidden data flows and formally characterize the possible impact of potential errors in each category on program execution, without simply rejecting the whole program. We implemented Static Blame on Grift, an academic gradually typed language, and evaluated the effectiveness of Static Blame by mutation analysis to verify our theoretical results. Our findings revealed that Static Blame exhibits a notable level of precision and recall in detecting type-related bugs. Furthermore, we conducted a manual classification to elucidate the reasons behind instances of failure. We also evaluated the performance of Static Blame, showing a quadratic growth in run time as program size increases.

show abstract

Section: Gradual Typingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Static Blame for gradual typing

SU,

CHEN,

YANHUI

et al. 2024

J. Funct. Prog.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cogent [55,56,58] is a purely functional language that was developed to reduce the cost of developing highassurance systems components. Similar to the Rust language [39], Cogent is equipped with a uniqueness type system [8,11,25,66] that ensures memory safety, easing the burden of verification. Cogent's type system allows imperativestyle destructive updates, while retaining a purely functional semantics.…”

Section: Cogentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Property-Based Testing: Climbing the Stairway to Verification

Chen

Rizkallah

O’Connor

et al. 2022

Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Software Language Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Property-based testing (PBT) is a powerful tool that is widely available in modern programming languages. It has been used to reduce formal software verification effort. We demonstrate how PBT can be used in conjunction with formal verification to incrementally gain greater assurance in code correctness by integrating PBT into the verification framework of CogentÐa programming language equipped with a certifying compiler for developing high-assurance systems components. Specifically, for PBT and formal verification to work in tandem, we structure the tests to mirror the refinement proof that we used in Cogent's verification framework: The expected behaviour of the system under test is captured by a functional correctness specification, which mimics the formal specification of the system, and we test the refinement relation between the implementation and the specification. We exhibit the additional benefits that this mutualism brings to developers and demonstrate the techniques we used in this style of PBT, by studying two concrete examples.

show abstract

Programming - What is Next?

Havelund

Steffen

2021

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

GATE: Gradual Effect Types

Cited by 4 publications

References 71 publications

Static Blame for gradual typing

Static Blame for gradual typing

Property-Based Testing: Climbing the Stairway to Verification

Programming - What is Next?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About