Submodules in racket

Flatt, Matthew

doi:10.1145/2517208.2517211

Cited by 10 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By referring to the name of the facet in question, in this case root. More technically, every facet name is associated with the corresponding effect type in the test submodule [33]. Consequently, facets that are the subject of behavioral analysis must have distinct names.…”

Section: Implementing the Model Checker Translationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reasoning about actors that share state

Caldwell

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This document was typeset on August 11, 2023 at 16:10 using the typographical lookand-feel classicthesis developed by André Miede, available at https://bitbucket.org/amiede/classicthesis/ 15 2.3 A Streamlined Semantics 19 2.3.1 Metafunctions 21 2.3.2 A Note on the Relationship Between the Semantics 22 3 Structural Types for Dataspace Actors 23 3.1 Types, Informally 23 3.1.1 Typing the Chat Room 30 3.1.2 Revisiting the Arithmetic Service 32 3.2 Actors, Types, Formally 33 3.2.1 λ ds Reduction Metafunctions 35 3.2.2 Types for Dataspaces and Actors 38 3.2.3 Static Semantics 39 3.2.4 Meta-Theorems 47 3.3 Completing the Model 48 3.3.1 Meta-Theorems 50 3.4 Implementation 53 3.5 Assessment 55 3.6 Related Work 56 4 Facets for Actors that Share State 59 4.1 Facets, Informally 59 4.1.1 Derived Forms 64 4.1.2 The Synergy of Facets 66 4.2 Facets, Formally 67 4.2.1 Formal Syntax 67 4.2.2 Semantics 70 4.2.3 Metafunctions 74 4.2.4 Machine Transition Example 79 vii 4.2.5 Dataspace Programs 82 4.3 Type Checking Facets 83 4.3.1 Auxiliary Definitions 85 4.3.2 Machine Typing 87 4.4 Properties 89 4.5 Related Work 92 5 Behavioral Types for Faceted Actors 95 5.1 Overview 95 5.1.1 Basic Types 95 5.1.2 Specification 95 5.1.3 Effect Types for Facets 97 5.1.4 Checking Specifications Mechanically 98 5.1.5 Revisiting the Smart-Home Example 99 5.2 Type Level Semantics 100 5.2.1 Machine Types and Type-level Machines 103 5.2.2 Type-level Dataspaces 107 5.3 Meta-Theorems 107 5.4 Implementation 113 5.4.1 Implementing the Behavior of Facet-Oriented Actors 113 5.4.2 Implementing the Type Checker 114 5.4.3 Implementing the Model Checker Translation 120 5.4.4 Type-Varying Assertions 125 5.5 Evaluation 126 5.5.1 Corpus 127 5.5.2 Deadlock Freedom 132 5.5.3 Classifications 134 5.5.4 Results 136 5.5.5 Interpretation and Discussion 139 5.5.6 Threats to Validity 141 5.6 Related Work 141 6 Conclusion 145 6.1 Future Work 145 6.2 Conclusion 149 viii

show abstract

Section: Implementing the Model Checker Translationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reasoning about actors that share state

Caldwell

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Frameworks compiled from declarations: a language‐independent approach

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Programming frameworks are an accepted fixture in the object-oriented world, motivated by the need for code reuse, developer guidance and restriction. A new trend is emerging where frameworks require domain experts to provide declarations using a domain-specific language, influencing the structure and behaviour of the resulting application. These mechanisms address concerns such as user privacy. Although many popular open platforms such as Android are based on declaration-driven frameworks, current implementations provide ad hoc and narrow solutions to concerns raised by their openness to non-certified developers. Most widely used frameworks fail to address serious privacy leaks and provide the user with little insight into application behaviour. To address these shortcomings, we show that declaration-driven frameworks can limit privacy leaks, as well as guide developers, independently from the underlying programming paradigm. To do so, we identify concepts that underlie declaration-driven frameworks and apply them systematically to an object-oriented language, Java and a dynamic functional language, Racket. The resulting programming framework generators are used to develop a prototype mobile application, illustrating how we mitigate a common class of privacy leaks. Finally, we explore the possible design choices and propose development principles for developing domain-specific language compilers to produce frameworks, applicable across a spectrum of programming paradigms.Domain-specific languages themselves are a well-established tool for increasing programmer efficacy as well as bridging the communication gap between application developers and domain experts [7][8][9][10]. This work aims in part to explore the link between DSLs and application programming frameworks.The complexity of DSLs used to parameterise frameworks varies greatly: we find examples ranging from simple lists of permissions as in Android to relatively rich DSLs used to describe the structure of the application (as in QtBuilder [11]). For example, the Manifest file required by Android applications declares which resources the application may use [3]. Resources are any sources or sinks, whether real devices (e.g. camera and microphone) or virtual ones (e.g. address book and the Internet). Such declarations allow the framework to better answer emerging challenges such as privacy concerns, potentially giving a user insight into how their sensitive information is used. In this work, we focus on these declaration-driven frameworks as applied to the problem of user data privacy. This is but one example where such declaration-driven frameworks are a fruitful technique: elsewhere, they have been applied to quality-of-service concerns [12], automatic exception management [13] or drive application simulation before deployment [14]. We restrict our discussion to user privacy, because it is a timely and relevant problem for which the benefits of declaration-driven frameworks are clear, as we will motivate in the rest of this article.Recently, we are seein...

show abstract

Binding as sets of scopes

Flatt

2016

Proceedings of the 43rd Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Submodules in racket

Cited by 10 publications

References 16 publications

Reasoning about actors that share state

Reasoning about actors that share state

Frameworks compiled from declarations: a language‐independent approach

Binding as sets of scopes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About