PL: Lecture #3  Tuesday, January 15th
(text file)

Note on Types

Types can become interesting when dealing with higher-order functions. For example, map receives a function and a list of some type, and applies the function over this list to accumulate its output, so its type is:

;; map : (A -> B) (Listof A) -> (Listof B)

Actually, map can use more than a single list, it will apply the function on the first element in all lists, then the second and so on. So the type of map with two lists can be described as:

;; map : (A B -> C) (Listof A) (Listof B) -> (Listof C)

Here’s a hairy example — what is the type of this function:

(define (foo x y)
  (map map x y))

Begin by what we know — both maps, call them map1 and map2, have the double- and single-list types of map respectively, here they are, with different names for types:

;; the first `map', consumes a function and two lists
map1 : (A B -> C) (Listof A) (Listof B) -> (Listof C)

;; the second `map', consumes a function and one list
map2 : (X -> Y) (Listof X) -> (Listof Y)

Now, we know that map2 is the first argument to map1, so the type of map1s first argument should be the type of map2:

(A B -> C) = (X -> Y) (Listof X) -> (Listof Y)

From here we can conclude that

A = (X -> Y)

B = (Listof X)

C = (Listof Y)

If we use these equations in map1’s type, we get:

map1 : ((X -> Y) (Listof X) -> (Listof Y))
      (Listof (X -> Y))
      (Listof (Listof X))
      -> (Listof (Listof Y))

Now, foo’s two arguments are the 2nd and 3rd arguments of map1, and its result is map1s result, so we can now write the type of foo:

;; foo : (Listof (X -> Y))
;;      (Listof (Listof X))
;;      -> (Listof (Listof Y))
(define (foo x y)
  (map map x y))

This should help you understand why, for example, this will cause a type error:

(foo (list add1 sub1 add1) (list 1 2 3))

and why this is valid:

(foo (list add1 sub1 add1) (map list (list 1 2 3)))

Side-note: Names are important

An important “discovery” in computer science is that we don’t need names for every intermediate sub-expression — for example, in almost any language we can write the equivalent of:

s = (-b + sqrt(b^2 - 4*a*c)) / (2*a)

instead of

x = b * b
y = 4 * a
y = y * c
x = x - y
x = sqrt(x)
y = -b
x = y + x
y = 2 * a
s = x / y

Such languages are put in contrast to assembly languages, and were all put under the generic label of “high level languages”.

(Here’s an interesting idea — why not do the same for function values?)

BNF, Grammars, the AE Language

Getting back to the theme of the course: we want to investigate programming languages, and we want to do that using a programming language.

The first thing when we design a language is to specify the language. For this we use BNF (Backus-Naur Form). For example, here is the definition of a simple arithmetic language:

<AE> ::= <num>
      | <AE> + <AE>
      | <AE> - <AE>

Explain the different parts. Specifically, this is a mixture of low-level (concrete) syntax definition with parsing.

We use this to derive expressions in some language. We start with <AE>, which should be one of these:

<num> is a terminal: when we reach it in the derivation, we’re done. <AE> is a non-terminal: when we reach it, we have to continue with one of the options. It should be clear that the + and the - are things we expect to find in the input — because they are not wrapped in <>s.

We could specify what <num> is (turning it into a <NUM> non-terminal):

<AE> ::= <NUM>
      | <AE> + <AE>
      | <AE> - <AE>

<NUM> ::= 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
        | <NUM> <NUM>

But we don’t — why? Because in Racket we have numbers as primitives and we want to use Racket to implement our languages. This makes life a lot easier, and we get free stuff like floats, rationals etc.

To use a BNF formally, for example, to prove that 1-2+3 is a valid <AE> expression, we first label the rules:

<AE> ::= <num>        (1)
      | <AE> + <AE>  (2)
      | <AE> - <AE>  (3)

and then we can use them as formal justifications for each derivation step:

<AE> + <AE>        ; (2)
<AE> + <num>        ; (1)
<AE> - <AE> + <num> ; (3)
<AE> - <AE> + 3    ; (num)
<num> - <AE> + 3    ; (1)
<num> - <num> + 3  ; (1)
1 - <num> + 3      ; (num)
1 - 2 + 3          ; (num)

This would be one way of doing this. Alternatively, we can can visualize the derivation using a tree, with the rules used at the nodes.

These specifications suffer from being ambiguous: an expression can be derived in multiple ways. Even the little syntax for a number is ambiguous — a number like 123 can be derived in two ways that result in trees that look different. This ambiguity is not a “real” problem now, but it will become one very soon. We want to get rid of this ambiguity, so that there is a single (= deterministic) way to derive all expressions.

There is a standard way to resolve that — we add another non-terminal to the definition, and make it so that each rule can continue to exactly one of its alternatives. For example, this is what we can do with numbers:

<NUM>  ::= <DIGIT> | <DIGIT> <NUM>

<DIGIT> ::= 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

Similar solutions can be applied to the <AE> BNF — we either restrict the way derivations can happen or we come up with new non-terminals to force a deterministic derivation trees.

As an example of restricting derivations, we look at the current grammar:

<AE> ::= <num>
      | <AE> + <AE>
      | <AE> - <AE>

and instead of allowing an <AE> on both sides of the operation, we force one to be a number:

<AE> ::= <num>
      | <num> + <AE>
      | <num> - <AE>

Now there is a single way to derive any expression, and it is always associating operations to the right: an expression like 1+2+3 can only be derived as 1+(2+3). To change this to left-association, we would use this:

<AE> ::= <num>
      | <AE> + <num>
      | <AE> - <num>

But what if we want to force precedence? Say that our AE syntax has addition and multiplication:

<AE> ::= <num>
      | <AE> + <AE>
      | <AE> * <AE>

We can do that same thing as above and add new non-terminals — say one for “products”:

<AE>  ::= <num>
        | <AE> + <AE>
        | <PROD>

<PROD> ::= <num>
        | <PROD> * <PROD>

Now we must parse any AE expression as additions of multiplications (or numbers). First, note that if <AE> goes to <PROD> and that goes to <num>, then there is no need for an <AE> to go to a <num>, so this is the same syntax:

<AE>  ::= <AE> + <AE>
        | <PROD>

<PROD> ::= <num>
        | <PROD> * <PROD>

Now, if we want to still be able to multiply additions, we can force them to appear in parentheses:

<AE>  ::= <AE> + <AE>
        | <PROD>

<PROD> ::= <num>
        | <PROD> * <PROD>
        | ( <AE> )

Next, note that <AE> is still ambiguous about additions, which can be fixed by forcing the left hand side of an addition to be a factor:

<AE>  ::= <PROD> + <AE>
        | <PROD>

<PROD> ::= <num>
        | <PROD> * <PROD>
        | ( <AE> )

We still have an ambiguity for multiplications, so we do the same thing and add another non-terminal for “atoms”:

<AE>  ::= <PROD> + <AE>
        | <PROD>

<PROD> ::= <ATOM> * <PROD>
        | <ATOM>

<ATOM> ::= <num>
        | ( <AE> )

And you can try to derive several expressions to be convinced that derivation is always deterministic now.

But as you can see, this is exactly the cosmetics that we want to avoid — it will lead us to things that might be interesting, but unrelated to the principles behind programming languages. It will also become much much worse when we have a real language rather such a tiny one.

Is there a good solution? — It is right in our face: do what Racket does — always use fully parenthesized expressions:

<AE> ::= <num>
      | ( <AE> + <AE> )
      | ( <AE> - <AE> )

To prevent confusing Racket code with code in our language(s), we also change the parentheses to curly ones:

<AE> ::= <num>
      | { <AE> + <AE> }
      | { <AE> - <AE> }

But in Racket everything has a value — including those +s and -s, which makes this extremely convenient with future operations that might have either more or less arguments than 2 as well as treating these arithmetic operators as plain functions. In our toy language we will not do this initially (that is, + and - are second order operators: they cannot be used as values). But since we will get to it later, we’ll adopt the Racket solution and use a fully-parenthesized prefix notation:

<AE> ::= <num>
      | { + <AE> <AE> }
      | { - <AE> <AE> }

(Remember that in a sense, Racket code is written in a form of already-parsed syntax…)