Cleanup. Explain \Ðelta_in
This commit is contained in:
parent
04fc640903
commit
a74e20802c
@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
|
||||
\section{Capture Constraints}
|
||||
\subsection{Capture Constraints}
|
||||
%TODO: General Capture Constraint explanation
|
||||
|
||||
Capture Constraints are bound to a variable.
|
||||
@ -66,9 +66,6 @@ But this case will never occur in our algorithm, because the let statements for
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Constraint generation}\label{chapter:constraintGeneration}
|
||||
% Our type inference algorithm is split into two parts.
|
||||
% A constraint generation step \textbf{TYPE} and a \unify{} step.
|
||||
|
||||
% Method names are not unique.
|
||||
% It is possible to define the same method in multiple classes.
|
||||
% The \TYPE{} algorithm accounts for that by generating Or-Constraints.
|
||||
@ -94,9 +91,6 @@ We will focus on those two parts where also the new capture constraints and wild
|
||||
%They will be added by an ANF transformation (see chapter \ref{sec:anfTransformation}).
|
||||
|
||||
Before generating constraints the input is transformed by an ANF transformation (see section \ref{sec:anfTransformation}).
|
||||
Capture conversion is only needed for wildcard types,
|
||||
but we don't know which expressions will spawn wildcard types because there are no type annotations yet.
|
||||
We preemptively enclose every expression in a let statement before using it as a method argument.
|
||||
|
||||
%Constraints are generated on the basis of the program in A-Normal form.
|
||||
%After adding the missing type annotations the resulting program is valid under the typing rules in \cite{WildFJ}.
|
||||
@ -193,22 +187,6 @@ So no types like $\wctype{\rwildcard{X}}{Pair}{\rwildcard{X}, \rwildcard{X}}$ or
|
||||
Type variables declared in the class header are passed to \unify{}.
|
||||
Those type variables count as regular types and can be held by normal type placeholders.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
There are two different types of constraints:
|
||||
\begin{description}
|
||||
\item[$\lessdot$] \textit{Example:}
|
||||
|
||||
$\exptype{List}{String} \lessdot \tv{a}, \exptype{List}{Integer} \lessdot \tv{a}$
|
||||
|
||||
\noindent
|
||||
Those two constraints imply that we have to find a type replacement for type variable $\tv{a}$,
|
||||
which is a supertype of $\exptype{List}{String}$ aswell as $\exptype{List}{Integer}$.
|
||||
This paper describes a \unify{} algorithm to solve these constraints and calculate a type solution $\sigma$.
|
||||
For the example above a correct solution would be $\sigma(\tv{a}) = \wctype{\rwildcard{X}}{List}{\rwildcard{X}}$.
|
||||
\item[$\lessdotCC$] TODO
|
||||
% The \fjtype{} algorithm assumes capture conversions for every method parameter.
|
||||
\end{description}
|
||||
|
||||
%Why do we need a constraint generation step?
|
||||
%% The problem is NP-Hard
|
||||
%% a method call, does not know which type it will produce
|
||||
@ -216,6 +194,7 @@ For the example above a correct solution would be $\sigma(\tv{a}) = \wctype{\rwi
|
||||
|
||||
%NO equals constraints during the constraint generation step!
|
||||
\begin{figure}[tp]
|
||||
\center
|
||||
\begin{tabular}{lcll}
|
||||
$C $ &$::=$ &$\overline{c}$ & Constraint set \\
|
||||
$c $ &$::=$ & $\type{T} \lessdot \type{T} \mid \type{T} \lessdotCC \type{T} \mid \type{T} \doteq \type{T}$ & Constraint \\
|
||||
@ -233,17 +212,19 @@ For the example above a correct solution would be $\sigma(\tv{a}) = \wctype{\rwi
|
||||
\begin{figure}[tp]
|
||||
\begin{gather*}
|
||||
\begin{array}{@{}l@{}l}
|
||||
\fjtype & ({\mtypeEnvironment}, \mathtt{class } \ \exptype{C}{\ol{X} \triangleleft \ol{N}} \ \mathtt{ extends } \ \mathtt{N \{ \overline{T} \ \overline{f}; \, \overline{M} \}}) =\\
|
||||
\fjtype & ({\mtypeEnvironment}, \mathtt{class } \ \exptype{C}{\overline{\type{X} \triangleleft \type{N}}} \ \mathtt{ extends } \ \mathtt{N \{ \overline{T} \ \overline{f}; \, \overline{M} \}}) =\\
|
||||
& \begin{array}{ll@{}l}
|
||||
\textbf{let} & \ol{\methodAssumption} =
|
||||
\set{ \mv{m} : (\exptype{C}{\ol{X}}, \ol{\tv{a}} \to \tv{a}) \mid
|
||||
\set{ \mv{m}(\ol{x}) = \expr{e} } \in \ol{M}, \, \tv{a}, \ol{\tv{a}}\ \text{fresh} } \\
|
||||
\textbf{in}
|
||||
& \begin{array}[t]{l}
|
||||
& \Delta = \set{ \overline{\wildcard{X}{\type{N}}{\bot}} } \\
|
||||
& C = \begin{array}[t]{l}
|
||||
\set{ \typeExpr(\mtypeEnvironment \cup \ol{\methodAssumption} \cup \set{\mv{this} :
|
||||
\exptype{C}{\ol{X}} , \, \ol{x} : \ol{\tv{a}} }, \texttt{e}, \tv{a})
|
||||
\\ \quad \quad \quad \quad \mid \set{ \mv{m}(\ol{x}) = \expr{e} } \in \ol{M},\, \mv{m} : (\exptype{C}{\ol{X}}, \ol{\tv{a}} \to \tv{a}) \in \ol{\methodAssumption}}
|
||||
\end{array}
|
||||
\end{array} \\
|
||||
\textbf{in}
|
||||
& (\Delta, C)
|
||||
\end{array}
|
||||
\end{array}
|
||||
\end{gather*}
|
||||
|
@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ Afterwards \unify{} substitutes type placeholder $\tv{a}$ with $\type{T}$.
|
||||
This is done until a substitution for all type placeholders and therefore a valid solution is reached.
|
||||
The reduction and substitutions are done in the first step of the algorithm.
|
||||
The algorithms state consists out of a wildcard environment and a constraint set ($\wildcardEnv \vdash C$).
|
||||
Initially they are set to $\Delta_{in}$ and the input constraints.
|
||||
Initially they are set to the input environment $\Delta_{in}$ and the input constraints.
|
||||
|
||||
Each calculation step of the algorithm is expressed as a transformation rule consisting of three parts.
|
||||
The input is shown above the line, the output below, and additional premises are displayed on the right side.
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user