Difference between revisions of "DynamicTypeSet"
m (→Dynamic type set algorithm) |
m (Remove 'is' keyword) |
||
(18 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | [[Category:ECMA]] | ||
Author: Matthias Konrad | Author: Matthias Konrad | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{UnderConstruction}} | ||
====CAT-Call freeness detection algorithms==== | ====CAT-Call freeness detection algorithms==== | ||
Line 5: | Line 8: | ||
* Kind A: Report a system that has no CAT-call as NOT CAT-call free. | * Kind A: Report a system that has no CAT-call as NOT CAT-call free. | ||
* Kind B: Report a system containing CAT-calls as CAT-call free. | * Kind B: Report a system containing CAT-calls as CAT-call free. | ||
− | Algorithms making errors of kind B are of no use. An algorithm that only makes errors of kind A leads to type safety, but may be useless if it makes too many (the trivial algorithm, that reports every Eiffel system as NOT CAT call free makes no errors of | + | Algorithms making errors of kind B are of no use. An algorithm that only makes errors of kind A leads to type safety, but may be useless if it makes too many (the trivial algorithm, that reports every Eiffel system as NOT CAT-call free makes no errors of kind B but is completely useless). |
− | The goal is thus to find the maximal subclass of the class of CAT-call free Eiffel systems that is decidable and fast enough to be used in practice. | + | The goal is thus to find the maximal (or most reasonable) subclass of the class of CAT-call free Eiffel systems that is decidable and fast enough to be used in practice. |
====Dynamic type set algorithm==== | ====Dynamic type set algorithm==== | ||
− | The Dynamic type set algorithm (DTSA) as defined in ETL2 (combined with a system validity check) seems to make no errors of kind B (it remains to be proven) but certainly of kind A. By showing some of these errors we try to show what impact the DTSA has to the Eiffel language. | + | The Dynamic type set algorithm (DTSA) as defined in ETL2 (combined with a system validity check) seems to make no errors of kind B (it remains to be proven) but certainly of kind A. By showing some of these errors we try to show what impact the DTSA has to the Eiffel language. |
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
DTSA does not work well with generic algorithms. See feature ''merge'', that merges the list ''f'' into the list ''t'': | DTSA does not work well with generic algorithms. See feature ''merge'', that merges the list ''f'' into the list ''t'': | ||
<code>[eiffel, N] | <code>[eiffel, N] | ||
− | merge (f, t: LIST [ANY]) | + | merge (f, t: LIST [ANY]) |
+ | require | ||
+ | f /= Void | ||
+ | t /= Void | ||
+ | --f.G <= t.G | ||
do | do | ||
from f.start until f.after loop | from f.start until f.after loop | ||
− | t.extend (f.item) | + | t.extend (f.item) |
f.forth | f.forth | ||
end | end | ||
Line 54: | Line 30: | ||
</code> | </code> | ||
− | This feature might be used frequently in a bigger system. As a consequence, the dynamic type sets of both arguments become large. It is not the performance problem that interests us here, but the fact that the feature will become invalid very fast. A system containing the following two calls to ''merge'' (even if the calls are not in the same feature or even class) will | + | This feature might be used frequently in a bigger system. As a consequence, the dynamic type sets of both arguments become large. It is not the performance problem that interests us here, but the fact that the feature will become invalid very fast. A system containing the following two calls to ''merge'' (even if the calls are not in the same feature or even class) will be reported as invalid: |
<code>[eiffel, N] | <code>[eiffel, N] | ||
Line 61: | Line 37: | ||
</code> | </code> | ||
− | I consider this a strong error of kind A, since it obviously takes power (genericity) from the language. | + | I consider this a strong error of kind A, since it obviously takes power (genericity) from the language. |
+ | |||
+ | ====Why does the DTSA fail for the merge methode==== | ||
+ | ==Proof obligation based algorithm== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Feature ''merge'' works with lots of dynamic types. It depends on one thing tough, the actual generic parameter of argument ''f'' needs to be equally or more specific compared to the actual generic parameter of argument ''t''. This constraint should be detected by an algorithm and made an obligation for every caller of ''merge''. In Eiffel an obligation made to a caller is a precondition. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Rule 1==== | ||
+ | For calls of the form: | ||
+ | |||
+ | <code> | ||
+ | t.f (a) | ||
+ | </code> | ||
+ | where feature the first formal argument of feature ''f'' is of generic type G the following obligation follows: | ||
+ | a <= t.G, a needs to be more specific than the | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
− | |||
A better algorithm should detect what feature ''merge'' depends on to work properly. | A better algorithm should detect what feature ''merge'' depends on to work properly. | ||
Line 73: | Line 65: | ||
|-valign="top" -halign="center" | |-valign="top" -halign="center" | ||
| | | | ||
− | < | + | <e> |
− | foo | + | foo |
local | local | ||
l1: LIST_ANY | l1: LIST_ANY | ||
Line 87: | Line 79: | ||
double_list (l2) | double_list (l2) | ||
end | end | ||
− | </ | + | </e> |
| | | | ||
− | < | + | <e> |
− | double_list (l: LIST_ANY) | + | double_list (l: LIST_ANY) -- backward obligation: l.put.item >= l.item |
do | do | ||
l.put (l.item) | l.put (l.item) | ||
Line 105: | Line 97: | ||
end | end | ||
− | </ | + | </e> |
|} | |} | ||
Line 112: | Line 104: | ||
+ | The following system will be used for examples: | ||
− | + | {|border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" align="center" | |
− | + | |-valign="top" -halign="center" | |
− | + | | | |
− | + | <code>[eiffel,N] | |
− | + | class | |
− | + | LIST_ANY | |
− | + | feature | |
− | + | put (i: ANY) is | |
+ | do | ||
+ | item := i | ||
+ | end | ||
+ | item: ANY | ||
+ | end | ||
+ | </code> | ||
+ | | | ||
+ | <code>[eiffel,N] | ||
+ | class | ||
+ | LIST_STRING | ||
+ | inherit | ||
+ | LIST_ANY | ||
+ | redefine put, item end | ||
+ | feature | ||
+ | put (i: STRING) is | ||
+ | do | ||
+ | item := i | ||
+ | end | ||
+ | item: STRING | ||
+ | end | ||
+ | </code> | ||
+ | |} |
Latest revision as of 07:35, 19 August 2013
Author: Matthias Konrad
Contents
CAT-Call freeness detection algorithms
Finding out, whether any given Eiffel system contains a CAT call is undecidable. A CAT call finding algorithm will thus make one or both of the following error kinds:
- Kind A: Report a system that has no CAT-call as NOT CAT-call free.
- Kind B: Report a system containing CAT-calls as CAT-call free.
Algorithms making errors of kind B are of no use. An algorithm that only makes errors of kind A leads to type safety, but may be useless if it makes too many (the trivial algorithm, that reports every Eiffel system as NOT CAT-call free makes no errors of kind B but is completely useless). The goal is thus to find the maximal (or most reasonable) subclass of the class of CAT-call free Eiffel systems that is decidable and fast enough to be used in practice.
Dynamic type set algorithm
The Dynamic type set algorithm (DTSA) as defined in ETL2 (combined with a system validity check) seems to make no errors of kind B (it remains to be proven) but certainly of kind A. By showing some of these errors we try to show what impact the DTSA has to the Eiffel language.
DTSA does not work well with generic algorithms. See feature merge, that merges the list f into the list t:
merge (f, t: LIST [ANY]) require f /= Void t /= Void --f.G <= t.G do from f.start until f.after loop t.extend (f.item) f.forth end end
This feature might be used frequently in a bigger system. As a consequence, the dynamic type sets of both arguments become large. It is not the performance problem that interests us here, but the fact that the feature will become invalid very fast. A system containing the following two calls to merge (even if the calls are not in the same feature or even class) will be reported as invalid:
merge (create {LINKED_LIST [STRING]}.make, create {LINKED_LIST [STRING]}.make) merge (create {LINKED_LIST [ANY]}.make, create {LINKED_LIST [ANY]}.make)
I consider this a strong error of kind A, since it obviously takes power (genericity) from the language.
Why does the DTSA fail for the merge methode
Proof obligation based algorithm
Feature merge works with lots of dynamic types. It depends on one thing tough, the actual generic parameter of argument f needs to be equally or more specific compared to the actual generic parameter of argument t. This constraint should be detected by an algorithm and made an obligation for every caller of merge. In Eiffel an obligation made to a caller is a precondition.
Rule 1
For calls of the form:
t.f (a)
where feature the first formal argument of feature f is of generic type G the following obligation follows: a <= t.G, a needs to be more specific than the
A better algorithm should detect what feature merge depends on to work properly.
One weakness of the DTSA is, that the dynamic type sets of arguments of often used types become huge. This indirectly leads to many errors of kind A as the following example shows:
foo local l1: LIST_ANY l2: LIST_STRING do create l1 l1.put ("") double_list (l1) create l2 l2.put ("") double_list (l2) end |
double_list (l: LIST_ANY) -- backward obligation: l.put.item >= l.item do l.put (l.item) end merge_list (from_list, to_list: LIST_ANY) --backward obligation: to_list.put.item >= from_list.start do to_list.put (from_list.start) end add_to_list (list: LIST_ANY; elem: ANY) --backward obligation: list.put.item >= elem do list.put (elem) end |
The dynamic type set of argument i of feature put of type LIST_ANY becomes {INTEGER, STRING}. Same thing for attribute item of type LIST_ANY. DTSA will thus fail to report this system as CAT-call free.
The following system will be used for examples:
class LIST_ANY feature put (i: ANY) is do item := i end item: ANY end |
class LIST_STRING inherit LIST_ANY redefine put, item end feature put (i: STRING) is do item := i end item: STRING end |