Type Theory
SelfRepresentation in Girard’s System U, by Matt Brown and Jens Palsberg:
In 1991, Pfenning and Lee studied whether System F could support a typed selfinterpreter. They concluded that typed selfrepresentation for System F “seems to be impossible”, but were able to represent System F in Fω. Further, they found that the representation of Fω requires kind polymorphism, which is outside Fω. In 2009, Rendel, Ostermann and Hofer conjectured that the representation of kindpolymorphic terms would require another, higher form of polymorphism. Is this a case of infinite regress?
We show that it is not and present a typed selfrepresentation for Girard’s System U, the first for a λcalculus with decidable type checking. System U extends System Fω with kind polymorphic terms and types. We show that kind polymorphic types (i.e. types that depend on kinds) are sufficient to “tie the knot” – they enable representations of kind polymorphic terms without introducing another form of polymorphism. Our selfrepresentation supports operations that iterate over a term, each of which can be applied to a representation of itself. We present three typed selfapplicable operations: a selfinterpreter that recovers a term from its representation, a predicate that tests the intensional structure of a term, and a typed continuationpassingstyle (CPS) transformation – the first typed selfapplicable CPS transformation. Our techniques could have applications from verifiably typepreserving metaprograms, to growable typed languages, to more efficient selfinterpreters.
Typed selfrepresentation has come up here on LtU in the past. I believe the best selfinterpreter available prior to this work was a variant of Barry Jay's SFcalculus, covered in the paper Typed SelfInterpretation by Pattern Matching (and more fully developed in Structural Types for the Factorisation Calculus). These covered statically typed selfinterpreters without resorting to undecidable type:type rules.
However, being combinator calculi, they're not very similar to most of our programming languages, and so selfinterpretation was still an active problem. Enter Girard's System U, which features a more familiar type system with only kind * and kindpolymorphic types. However, System U is not strongly normalizing and is inconsistent as a logic. Whether selfinterpretation can be achieved in a strongly normalizing language with decidable type checking is still an open problem.
John Corcoran, Secondorder logic explained in plain English, in Logic, Meaning and Computation: Essays in Memory of Alonzo Church, ed. Anderson and Zelëny.
There is something a little bit Guy Steeleish about trying to explain the fundamentals of secondorder logic (SOL, the logic that Quine branded as set theory in sheep's clothing) and its model theory while avoiding any formalisation. This paper introduces the ideas of SOL via looking at logics with finite, countable and uncountable models, and then talks about FOL and SOL as being complementary approaches to axiomatisation that are each deficient by themself. He ends with a plea for SOL as being an essential tool at least as a heuristic.
The Next Stage of Staging, by Jun Inoue, Oleg Kiselyov, Yukiyoshi Kameyama:
This position paper argues for typelevel metaprogramming, wherein types and type declarations are generated in addition to program terms. Termlevel metaprogramming, which allows manipulating expressions only, has been extensively studied in the form of staging, which ensures static type safety with a clean semantics with hygiene (lexical scoping). However, the corresponding development is absent for type manipulation. We propose extensions to staging to cover MLstyle module generation and show the possibilities they open up for type specialization and overheadfree parametrization of data types equipped with operations. We outline the challenges our proposed extensions pose for semantics and type safety, hence offering a starting point for a longterm program in the next stage of staging research. The key observation is that type declarations do not obey scoping rules as variables do, and that in metaprogramming, types are naturally prone to escaping the lexical environment in which they were declared. This sets nextstage staging apart from dependent types, whose benefits and implementation mechanisms overlap with our proposal, but which does not deal with typedeclaration generation. Furthermore, it leads to an interesting connection between staging and the logic of definitions, adding to the study’s theoretical significance.
A position paper describing the next logical progression of staging to metaprogramming over types. Now with the true firstclass modules of 1ML, perhaps there's a clearer way forward.
In this year's POPL, Bob Atkey made a splash by showing how to get from parametricity to conservation laws, via Noether's theorem:
Invariance is of paramount importance in programming languages and in physics. In programming languages, John Reynolds’ theory of relational parametricity demonstrates that parametric polymorphic programs are invariant under change of data representation, a property that yields “free” theorems about programs just from their types. In physics, Emmy Noether showed that if the action of a physical system is invariant under change of coordinates, then the physical system has a conserved quantity: a quantity that remains constant for all time. Knowledge of conserved quantities can reveal deep properties of physical systems. For example, the conservation of energy, which by Noether’s theorem is a consequence of a system’s invariance under timeshifting.
In this paper, we link Reynolds’ relational parametricity with Noether’s theorem for deriving conserved quantities. We propose an extension of System Fω with new kinds, types and term constants for writing programs that describe classical mechanical systems in terms of their Lagrangians. We show, by constructing a relationally parametric model of our extension of Fω, that relational parametricity is enough to satisfy the hypotheses of Noether’s theorem, and so to derive conserved quantities for free, directly from the polymorphic types of Lagrangians expressed in our system.
Earlier this week Microsoft Research Cambridge organised a Festschrift for Luca Cardelli. The preface from the book:
Luca Cardelli has made exceptional contributions to the world of programming
languages and beyond. Throughout his career, he has reinvented himself every
decade or so, while continuing to make true innovations. His achievements span
many areas: software; language design, including experimental languages;
programming language foundations; and the interaction of programming languages
and biology. These achievements form the basis of his lasting scientific leadership
and his wide impact.
...
Luca is always asking "what is new", and is always looking to
the future. Therefore, we have asked authors to produce short pieces that would
indicate where they are today and where they are going. Some of the resulting
pieces are short scientific papers, or abridged versions of longer papers; others are
less technical, with thoughts on the past and ideas for the future. We hope that
they will all interest Luca.
Hopefully the videos will be posted soon.
Philip Wadler posts his exchange with William Howard on history of the CurryHoward correspondence. Howard on CurryHoward.
Type soundness and freedom for Mezzo,
Thibaut Balabonski, François Pottier, and Jonathan Protzenko,
2014
Full paper
Presentation slides
The programming language Mezzo is equipped with a rich type system that controls aliasing and access to mutable memory. We incorporate sharedmemory concurrency into Mezzo and present a modular formalization of its core type system, in the form of a concurrent λcalculus, which we extend with references and locks. We prove that welltyped programs do not go wrong and are datarace free. Our definitions and proofs are machinechecked.
The Mezzo programming language has been mentioned recently on LtU. The article above is however not so much about the practice of Mezzo or justification of its design choices (for this, see Programming with Permissions in Mezzo, François Pottier and Jonathan Protzenko, 2013), but a presentation of its soundness proof.
I think this paper is complementary to more practiceoriented ones, and remarkable for at least two reasons:
 It is remarkably simple, for a complete soundness proof (and racefreeness) of a programming language with higherorder functions, mutable states, strong update, linear types, and dynamic borrowing. This is one more confirmation of the simplifying effect of mechanized theorem proving.
 It is the first soundness proof of a programming language that is strongly inspired by Separation Logic. (Concurrent) Separation Logic has been a revolution in the field of programming logics, but it had until now not be part of a fullfledged language design, and this example is bound to be followed by many others. I expect the structure of this proof to be reused many times in the future.
Backpack: Retrofitting Haskell with Interfaces
Scott Kilpatrick, Derek Dreyer, Simon Peyton Jones, Simon Marlow
2014
Module systems like that of Haskell permit only a weak form of modularity in which module implementations directly depend on other implementations and must be processed in dependency order. Module systems like that of ML, on the other hand, permit a stronger form of modularity in which explicit interfaces express assumptions about dependencies, and each module can be typechecked and reasoned about independently.
In this paper, we present Backpack, a new language for building separatelytypecheckable packages on top of a weak module system like Haskell's. The design of Backpack is inspired by the MixML module calculus of Rossberg and Dreyer, but differs significantly in detail. Like MixML, Backpack supports explicit interfaces and recursive linking. Unlike MixML, Backpack supports a more flexible applicative semantics of instantiation. Moreover, its design is motivated less by foundational concerns and more by the practical concern of integration into Haskell, which has led us to advocate simplicityâ€”in both the syntax and semantics of Backpackâ€”over raw expressive power. The semantics of Backpack packages is defined by elaboration to sets of Haskell modules and binary interface files, thus showing how Backpack maintains interoperability with Haskell while extending it with separate typechecking. Lastly, although Backpack is geared toward integration into Haskell, its design and semantics are largely agnostic with respect to the details of the underlying core language.
Pure Subtype Systems, by DeLesley S. Hutchins:
This paper introduces a new approach to type theory called pure subtype systems. Pure subtype systems differ from traditional approaches to type theory (such as pure type systems) because the theory is based on subtyping, rather than typing. Proper types and typing are completely absent from the theory; the subtype relation is defined directly over objects. The traditional typing relation is shown to be a special case of subtyping, so the loss of types comes without any loss of generality.
Pure subtype systems provide a uniform framework which seamlessly integrates subtyping with dependent and singleton types. The framework was designed as a theoretical foundation for several problems of practical interest, including mixin modules, virtual classes, and featureoriented programming.
The cost of using pure subtype systems is the complexity of the metatheory. We formulate the subtype relation as an abstract reduction system, and show that the theory is sound if the underlying reductions commute. We are able to show that the reductions commute locally, but have thus far been unable to show that they commute globally. Although the proof is incomplete, it is â€œclose enoughâ€ to rule out obvious counterexamples. We present it as an open problem in type theory.
A thoughtprovoking take on type theory using subtyping as the foundation for all relations. He collapses the type hierarchy and unifies types and terms via the subtyping relation. This also has the sideeffect of combining type checking and partial evaluation. Functions can accept "types" and can also return "types".
Of course, it's not all sunshine and roses. As the abstract explains, the metatheory is quite complicated and soundness is still an open question. Not too surprising considering type checking Type:Type is undecidable.
Hutchins' thesis is also available for a more thorough treatment. This work is all in pursuit of Hitchens' goal of featureoriented programming.
Types for Flexible Objects, by Pottayil Harisanker Menon, Zachary Palmer, Alexander Rozenshteyn, Scott Smith:
Scripting languages are popular in part due to their extremely flexible objects. These languages support numerous object features, including dynamic extension, mixins, traits, and ï¬rstclass messages. While some work has succeeded in typing these features individually, the solutions have limitations in some cases and no project has combined the results.
In this paper we deï¬ne TinyBang, a small typed language containing only functions, labeled data, a data combinator, and pattern matching. We show how it can directly express all of the aforementioned ï¬‚exible object features and still have sound typing. We use a subtype constraint type inference system with several novel extensions to ensure full type inference; our algorithm reï¬nes parametric polymorphism for both flexibility and efficiency. We also use TinyBang to solve an open problem in OO literature: objects can be extended after being messaged without loss of width or depth subtyping and without dedicated metatheory. A core subset of TinyBang is proven sound and a preliminary implementation has been constructed.
An interesting paper I stumbled across quite by accident, it purports quite an ambitious set of features: generalizing previous work on firstclass cases while supporting subtyping, mutation, and polymorphism all with full type inference, in an effort to match the flexibility of dynamically typed languages.
It does so by introducing a host of new concepts that are almostbutnotquite generalizations of existing concepts, like "onions" which are kind of a typeindexed extensible record, and "scapes" which are sort of a generalization of pattern matching cases.
Instead of approaching objects via a record calculus, they approach it using its dual as variant matching. Matching functions then have degenerate dependent types, which I first saw in the paper Type Inference for FirstClass Messages with MatchFunctions. Interesting aside, Scott Smith was a coauthor on this last paper too, but it isn't referenced in the "flexible objects" paper, despite the fact that "scapes" are "matchfunctions".
Overall, quite a dense and ambitous paper, but the resulting TinyBang language looks very promising and quite expressive. Future work includes making the system more modular, as it currently requires whole program compilation, and adding firstclass labels, which in past work has led to interesting results as well. Most work exploiting row polymorphism is particularly interesting because it supports efficient compilation to indexpassing code for both records and variants. It's not clear if onions and scapes are also amenable to this sort of translation.
Edit: a previous paper was published in 2012, A Practical, Typed Variant Object Model  Or, How to Stand On Your Head and Enjoy the View. BigBang is their language that provides syntactic sugar on top of TinyBang.
Edit 2: commas fixed, thanks!

Recent comments
8 min 11 sec ago
1 hour 2 min ago
2 hours 2 min ago
3 hours 13 min ago
4 hours 43 sec ago
6 hours 10 min ago
6 hours 29 min ago
7 hours 6 min ago
7 hours 46 min ago
8 hours 38 min ago