Good tools can bring mechanical verification to programs written in mainstream functional languages. We use hs-to-coq to translate significant portions of Haskell’s containers library into Coq, and verify it against specifications that we derive from a variety of sources including type class laws, the library’s test suite, and interfaces from Coq’s standard library. Our work shows that it is feasible to verify mature, widely used, highly optimized, and unmodified Haskell code. We also learn more about the theory of weight-balanced trees, extend hs-to-coq to handle partiality, and – since we found no bugs – attest to the superb quality of well-tested functional code.

Generative type abstractions – present in Haskell, OCaml, and other languages – are useful concepts to help prevent programmer errors. They serve to create new types that are distinct at compile time but share a run-time representation with some base type. We present a new mechanism that allows for zero-cost conversions between generative type abstractions and their representations, even when such types are deeply nested. We prove type safety in the presence of these conversions and have implemented our work in GHC.

Among dialysis facilities participating in a bloodstream infection (BSI) prevention collaborative, access-related BSI incidence rate improvements observed immediately following implementation of a bundle of BSI prevention interventions were sustained for up to 4 years. Overall, BSI incidence remained unchanged from baseline in the current analysis.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:863–866

The 15th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming (ICFP) took place on September 27–29, 2010 in Baltimore, Maryland. After the conference, the programme committee, chaired by Stephanie Weirich, selected several outstanding papers and invited their authors to submit to this special issue of Journal of Functional Programming. Umut A. Acar and James Cheney acted as editors for these submissions. This issue includes the seven accepted papers, each of which provides substantial new material beyond the original conference version. The selected papers reflect a consensus by the program committee that ICFP 2010 had a number of strong papers that link core functional programming ideas with other areas, such as multicore, embedded systems, and data compression.

Since Findler and Felleisen (Findler, R. B. & Felleisen, M. 2002) introduced higher-order contracts, many variants have been proposed. Broadly, these fall into two groups: some follow Findler and Felleisen (2002) in using latent contracts, purely dynamic checks that are transparent to the type system; others use manifest contracts, where refinement types record the most recent check that has been applied to each value. These two approaches are commonly assumed to be equivalent—different ways of implementing the same idea, one retaining a simple type system, and the other providing more static information. Our goal is to formalize and clarify this folklore understanding. Our work extends that of Gronski and Flanagan (Gronski, J. & Flanagan, C. 2007), who defined a latent calculus λC and a manifest calculus λH, gave a translation φ from λC to λH, and proved that if a λC term reduces to a constant, so does its φ-image. We enrich their account with a translation ψ from λH to λC and prove an analogous theorem. We then generalize the whole framework to dependent contracts, whose predicates can mention free variables. This extension is both pragmatically crucial, supporting a much more interesting range of contracts, and theoretically challenging. We define dependent versions of λH and two dialects (“lax” and “picky”) of λC, establish type soundness—a substantial result in itself, for λH — and extend φ and ψ accordingly. Surprisingly, the intuition that the latent and manifest systems are equivalent now breaks down: the extended translations preserve behavior in one direction, but in the other, sometimes yield terms that blame more.

Propositions that express type equality are a frequent ingredient of modern functional programming – they can encode generic functions, dynamic types, and GADTs. Via the Curry–Howard correspondence, these propositions are ordinary types inhabited by proof terms, computed using runtime type representations. In this paper we show that two examples of type equality propositions actually do reflect type equality; they are only inhabited when their arguments are equal and their proofs are unique (up to equivalence.) We show this result in the context of a strongly normalizing language with higher-order polymorphism and primitive recursion over runtime-type representations by proving Reynolds's abstraction theorem. We then use this theorem to derive “free” theorems about equality types.

Higher-order abstract syntax is a simple technique for implementing languages with functional programming. Object variables and binders are implemented by variables and binders in the host language. By using this technique, one can avoid implementing common and tricky routines dealing with variables, such as capture-avoiding substitution. However, despite the advantages this technique provides, it is not commonly used because it is difficult to write sound elimination forms (such as folds or catamorphisms) for higher-order abstract syntax. To fold over such a data type, one must either simultaneously define an inverse operation (which may not exist) or show that all functions embedded in the data type are parametric. In this paper, we show how first-class polymorphism can be used to guarantee the parametricity of functions embedded in higher-order abstract syntax. With this restriction, we implement a library of iteration operators over data structures containing functionals. From this implementation, we derive “fusion laws” that functional programmers may use to reason about the iteration operator. Finally, we show how this use of parametric polymorphism corresponds to the Schürmann, Despeyroux and Pfenning method of enforcing parametricity through modal types. We do so by using this library to give a sound and complete encoding of their calculus into System . This encoding can serve as a starting point for reasoning about higher-order structures in polymorphic languages.

Haskell's popularity has driven the need for ever more expressive type system features, most of which threaten the decidability and practicality of Damas-Milner type inference. One such feature is the ability to write functions with higher-rank types – that is, functions that take polymorphic functions as their arguments. Complete type inference is known to be undecidable for higher-rank (impredicative) type systems, but in practice programmers are more than willing to add type annotations to guide the type inference engine, and to document their code. However, the choice of just what annotations are required, and what changes are required in the type system and its inference algorithm, has been an ongoing topic of research. We take as our starting point a λ-calculus proposed by Odersky and Läufer. Their system supports arbitrary-rank polymorphism through the exploitation of type annotations on λ-bound arguments and arbitrary sub-terms. Though elegant, and more convenient than some other proposals, Odersky and Läufer's system requires many annotations. We show how to use local type inference (invented by Pierce and Turner) to greatly reduce the annotation burden, to the point where higher-rank types become eminently usable. Higher-rank types have a very modest impact on type inference. We substantiate this claim in a very concrete way, by presenting a complete type-inference engine, written in Haskell, for a traditional Damas-Milner type system, and then showing how to extend it for higher-rank types. We write the type-inference engine using a monadic framework: it turns out to be a particularly compelling example of monads in action. The paper is long, but is strongly tutorial in style. Although we use Haskell as our example source language, and our implementation language, much of our work is directly applicable to any ML-like functional language.

Polytypic programming is a way of defining type-indexed operations, such as map, fold and zip, based on type information. Run-time polytypic programming allows that type information to be dynamically computed – this support is essential in modern programming languages that support separate compilation, first-class type abstraction, or polymorphic recursion. However, in previous work we defined run-time polytypic programming with a type-passing semantics. Although it is natural to define polytypic programs as operating over first-class types, such a semantics suffers from a number of drawbacks. This paper describes how to recast that work in a type-erasure semantics, where terms represent type information in a safe manner. The resulting language is simple and easy to implement – we present a prototype implementation of the necessary machinery as a small Haskell library.

Comparing two types for equality is an essential ingredient for an implementation of dynamic types. Once equality has been established, it is safe to cast a value from one type to another. In a language with run-time type analysis, implementing such a procedure is fairly straightforward. Unfortunately, this naive implementation destructs and rebuilds the argument while iterating over its type structure. However, by using higher-order polymorphism, a casting function can treat its argument parametrically. We demonstrate this solution in two frameworks for ad-hoc polymorphism: intensional type analysis and Haskell type classes.

Intensional polymorphism, the ability to dispatch to different routines based on types at run time, enables a variety of advanced implementation techniques for polymorphic languages, including tag-free garbage collection, unboxed function arguments, polymorphic marshalling and attened data structures. To date, languages that support intensional polymorphism have required a type-passing (as opposed to type-erasure) interpretation where types are constructed and passed to polymorphic functions at run time. Unfortunately, type-passing suffers from a number of drawbacks: it requires duplication of run-time constructs at the term and type levels, it prevents abstraction, and it severely complicates polymorphic closure conversion. We present a type-theoretic framework that supports intensional polymorphism, but avoids many of the disadvantages of type passing. In our approach, run-time type information is represented by ordinary terms. This avoids the duplication problem, allows us to recover abstraction, and avoids complications with closure conversion. In addition, our type system provides another improvement in expressiveness; it allows unknown types to be refined in place, thereby avoiding certain beta-expansions required by other frameworks.