Rephrase Triple example
This commit is contained in:
parent
b78594cf39
commit
24cfd8cb75
@ -561,6 +561,47 @@ As soon as enough type information is given \unify{} can conduct a capture conve
|
||||
The constraints where this is possible are marked as capture constraints.
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Discussion Pair Example}
|
||||
\begin{verbatim}
|
||||
<X> Pair<X,X> make(List<X> l){ ... }
|
||||
<X> boolean compare(Pair<X,X> p) { ... }
|
||||
|
||||
List<?> l;
|
||||
Pair<?,?> p;
|
||||
|
||||
compare(make(l)); // Valid
|
||||
compare(p); // Error
|
||||
\end{verbatim}
|
||||
|
||||
Our type inference algorithm is not able to solve this example.
|
||||
When we convert this to \TamedFJ{} and generate constraints we end up with:
|
||||
\begin{lstlisting}[style=tamedfj]
|
||||
let m = let x = l in make(x) in compare(m)
|
||||
\end{lstlisting}
|
||||
\begin{constraintset}$
|
||||
\wctype{\rwildcard{X}}{List}{\rwildcard{X}} \lessdot \ntv{x},
|
||||
\ntv{x} \lessdotCC \exptype{List}{\wtv{a}}
|
||||
\exptype{Pair}{\wtv{a}, \wtv{a}} \lessdot \ntv{m}, %% TODO: Mark this constraint
|
||||
\ntv{m} \lessdotCC \exptype{Pair}{\wtv{b}, \wtv{b}}
|
||||
$\end{constraintset}
|
||||
|
||||
$\ntv{x}$ will get the type $\wctype{\rwildcard{X}}{List}{\rwildcard{X}}$ and
|
||||
from the constraint
|
||||
$\wctype{\rwildcard{X}}{List}{\rwildcard{X}} \lessdot \exptype{List}{\wtv{a}}$
|
||||
\unify{} deducts $\wtv{a} \doteq \rwildcard{X}$ leading to
|
||||
$\exptype{Pair}{\rwildcard{X}, \rwildcard{X}} \lessdot \ntv{m}$.
|
||||
|
||||
Finding a supertype to $\exptype{Pair}{\rwildcard{X}, \rwildcard{X}}$ is the crucial part.
|
||||
The correct substition for $\ntv{m}$ would be $\wctype{\rwildcard{X}}{Pair}{\rwildcard{X}, \rwildcard{X}}$.
|
||||
But this leads to additional branching inside the \unify{} algorithm and increases runtime.
|
||||
%We refrain from using that type, because it is not denotable with Java syntax.
|
||||
%Types used for normal type placeholders should be expressable Java types. % They are not!
|
||||
|
||||
The prefered way of dealing with this example in our opinion would be the addition of a multi-let statement to the syntax.
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{lstlisting}[style=letfj]
|
||||
let x : (*@$\wctype{\rwildcard{X}}{List}{\rwildcard{X}}$@*) = l, m = make(x) in compare(make(x))
|
||||
\end{lstlisting}
|
||||
|
||||
We can make it work with a special rule in the \unify{}.
|
||||
But this will only help in this specific example and not generally solve the issue.
|
||||
A type $\exptype{Pair}{\rwildcard{X}, \rwildcard{X}}$ has atleast two immediate supertypes:
|
||||
@ -599,49 +640,6 @@ $
|
||||
\end{constraintset}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{verbatim}
|
||||
<X> Pair<X,X> make(List<X> l){ ... }
|
||||
<X> boolean compare(Pair<X,X> p) { ... }
|
||||
|
||||
List<?> l;
|
||||
Pair<?,?> p;
|
||||
|
||||
compare(make(l)); // Valid
|
||||
compare(p); // Error
|
||||
\end{verbatim}
|
||||
|
||||
Our type inference algorithm is not able to solve this example.
|
||||
When we convert this to \TamedFJ{} and generate constraints we end up with:
|
||||
\begin{lstlisting}[style=tamedfj]
|
||||
let m = let x = l in make(x) in compare(m)
|
||||
\end{lstlisting}
|
||||
\begin{constraintset}$
|
||||
\wctype{\rwildcard{X}}{List}{\rwildcard{X}} \lessdot \ntv{x},
|
||||
\ntv{x} \lessdotCC \exptype{List}{\wtv{a}}
|
||||
\exptype{Pair}{\wtv{a}, \wtv{a}} \lessdot \ntv{m}, %% TODO: Mark this constraint
|
||||
\ntv{m} \lessdotCC \exptype{Pair}{\wtv{b}, \wtv{b}}
|
||||
$\end{constraintset}
|
||||
|
||||
$\ntv{x}$ will get the type $\wctype{\rwildcard{X}}{List}{\rwildcard{X}}$ and
|
||||
from the constraint
|
||||
$\wctype{\rwildcard{X}}{List}{\rwildcard{X}} \lessdot \exptype{List}{\wtv{a}}$
|
||||
\unify{} deducts $\wtv{a} \doteq \rwildcard{X}$ leading to
|
||||
$\exptype{Pair}{\rwildcard{X}, \rwildcard{X}} \lessdot \ntv{m}$.
|
||||
|
||||
Finding a supertype to $\exptype{Pair}{\rwildcard{X}, \rwildcard{X}}$ is the crucial part.
|
||||
The correct substition for $\ntv{m}$ would be $\wctype{\rwildcard{X}}{Pair}{\rwildcard{X}, \rwildcard{X}}$.
|
||||
We refrain from using that type, because it is not denotable with Java syntax.
|
||||
Types used for normal type placeholders should be expressable Java types.
|
||||
|
||||
The prefered way of dealing with this example in our opinion would be the addition of a multi-let statement to the syntax.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{lstlisting}[style=letfj]
|
||||
let x : (*@$\wctype{\rwildcard{X}}{List}{\rwildcard{X}}$@*) = l in let m = make(x) in compare(m)
|
||||
\end{lstlisting}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\end{itemize}
|
||||
|
||||
%TODO: Move this part. or move the third challenge some underneath.
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user