publication pressure

I have to say, I need to try to publish my work more often. (For other than
the obvious reason that I need to publish work, period.)

It really forces you to make everything concrete. To the max.

Almost as much as actually implementing it would.

System F and semi-unification

This is somewhat of a note to myself to revist the responses posted.

I'm not 100% percent sure the original author (Mike) really had a grasp on what he was saying. On the one hand, he wanted to get an intuition as to which programs would be problematic to infer types for. But then he started talking about reducing inference for those problems to semi-unification; that's not the right idea! The idea is that you take a bog-standard undecidable problem (e.g. the halting problem), reduce that to semi-unification, and then reduce the reduction to a sample term in System F.

Of course, this would probably yield a term so complex that it would boggle the mind, and not provide the intuition that he was hoping for.

If, on the other hand, he was just interested in the idea of using a (partial) semi-unifier to (partially) perform type inference for System F, then that's a different story. Hard to tell. But lots of interesting points and links in the responses.

subtextual response

I've been looking at Jonathan Edwards' experimental programming
environment/language, Subtextual

I am semi-underwhelmed. But there are some interesting connections with spreadsheet programming here.

I later read this post from the related Alarming Development blog, and there was one thing there that irk'ed me: the idea that we should embraced copy-and-paste programming.

cut-and-paste programming, I have learned to accept. That's when, if you are tempted to copy-and-paste a snippet of code, you instead cut it out entirely, and then turn it into a seperate subroutine/superclass/unit/module. Then you parameterize accordingly (and of course you are expected to add documentation about the mental model you have in your head about what this piece of code does).

But copy-and-paste is very dangerous. And in fact, in Subtextual, it seems like Edwards has embraced a sort of hybrid between cut and copy, because when you copy subtrees, you don't get a fresh copy immediately; instead you get a tree that is linked back to the original tree, and changes to either will propogate to both. You have a seperate operation, "introduce variant", to actually do the copying in place.

mailman, postfix, and pain

Was up late last night trying to set up a mailman-based mailing list to demonstrate such things to my cousin.

I made much use of this page to figure out how to get the whole thing going. But when I went to bed, the damn thing still wasn't working.

Eventually I figured out that I never actually started the mailman daemon that is in charge of processing information as it comes in. I just figured that apache and postfix would know that they needed to call out to these command line procedures when they got certain inputs (e.g. mail to a particular address). Silly me.

So I was dumped into the sewer of systems administration once again. But I've pulled myself out now; I'm so happy I'm a PL researcher.

Observing Finalizers and References on the JVM

As a followup to clarify my previous comment on this post (since Dave and I discussed this question personally):

Here is an experimental revision of the code that Dave posted; it is meant to demonstrate a number of things. The most important are:

• If you want to really observe a space leak, it is helpful to actually use objects which are large (new int[X] is your friend here).
  
• If you want to really observe a space leak, it (unfortunately) seems like you may have to employ the (non-standard) -Xms and -Xmx options to the JVM.
  
• There are more reliable/sensible alternatives for monitoring whether an object has been collected than attempting to maintain a hashtable of object identifiers. Namely, use of classes in java.lang.ref.*.
  
  
  
  • Having said this, I admit that I do not fully understand the semantics of weak references, because I was not able to naively replace all of Dave's uses of kill(int) with my killAlt(int) procedure.
    
  
  
• Finalizers really are run only once. However, that doesn't always mean that you can't collect an object just because the call to its finalizer makes it live again.
  

I had to backport the code to JDK 1.4 since that's all I have on my poor little Mac OS X box. Sorry. I tried to make the backport clean by using trampoline instantiation of the generic collections rather than cluttering up the code with casts everywhere.

Sample command line invocations of this class:

% java -Xmx1mb -Xms1mb Immortal -dummysize 100000 -num 10

% java -Xmx1mb -Xms1mb Immortal -dummysize 100000 -blowup 10

(Note that due to the braindead way I'm doing argument parsing, the order of the options above is VERY significant).

import java.util.Hashtable;
import java.util.Vector;
import java.lang.ref.Reference;
import java.lang.ref.WeakReference;
import java.lang.ref.ReferenceQueue;

public class Immortal {

    static class HashtableFromIntegerToInteger {
 Hashtable me = new Hashtable();
 public int get(int k) { return ((Integer)me.get(new Integer(k))).intValue(); }
 public void put(int k, int v) { me.put(new Integer(k), new Integer(v)); }
 public void remove(int k) { me.remove(new Integer(k)); }
    }

    static class HashtableFromIntegerToImmortal {
 Hashtable me = new Hashtable();
 public Immortal get(int k) { return ((Immortal)me.get(new Integer(k))); }
 public void put(int k, Immortal v) { me.put(new Integer(k), v); }
 public void remove(int k) { me.remove(new Integer(k)); }
    }

    static class HashtableFromIntegerToRef {
 Hashtable me = new Hashtable();
 public Reference get(int k) { return ((Reference)me.get(new Integer(k))); }
 public void put(int k, Reference v) { me.put(new Integer(k), v); }
 public void remove(int k) { me.remove(new Integer(k)); }
    }

    /** tracks the number of times each finalizer is run */
    // private static Hashtable finalizeCounts = new Hashtable();
    private static HashtableFromIntegerToInteger finalizeCounts = new HashtableFromIntegerToInteger();

    /** used to control object lifetimes */
    private static HashtableFromIntegerToImmortal pointers = new HashtableFromIntegerToImmortal();

    private static HashtableFromIntegerToRef  phantoms = new HashtableFromIntegerToRef();
    
    private static ReferenceQueue refqueue = new ReferenceQueue();

    private static boolean nomesg = false;

    private static void mesg(String s) {
 if (! nomesg) {
     System.out.println(s);
 }
    }

    /** used to generate unique identifier codes */
    private static int unique = 0;

    /** some "large" state so that we can observe blowup */
    public int[] dummydata;
    private static int dummysize = 100;

    public static void killAlt(int id) {
        int finalizeCount = finalizeCounts.get(id);
        pointers.remove(id);
        while ( ! phantoms.get(id).isEnqueued())
        {
            mesg("(alt) trying to kill " + id + "...");
            System.gc();
        }
    }

    /** deletes the object with the given id. */
    public static void kill(int id)
    {
        int finalizeCount = finalizeCounts.get(id);
        pointers.remove(id);
        while (finalizeCounts.get(id) == finalizeCount)
        {
            mesg("trying to kill " + id + "...");
            System.gc();
        }
    }

    // The code from these two methods can't be inlined, because
    // we rely on their stack frame disappearing to prevent the
    // link to the tracked object from persisting.

    public static int makeTemporaryObject()
    {
        Immortal temp = new Immortal();
        return temp.id;
    }

    public static void doSomethingWith(int id)
    {
        Immortal temp = pointers.get(id);
        temp.sayHello();
    }

    /** identifier code */
    private int id;

    private Immortal()
    {
        id = unique++;
        mesg("creating instance " + id);
        finalizeCounts.put(id, 0);
        pointers.put(id, this);
 phantoms.put(id, new WeakReference(this, refqueue));
 int last = dummysize;
 dummydata = new int[last + 1];
 dummydata[0] = 1;
 dummydata[last] = 1;
    }

    public void sayHello()
    {
        System.out.println("hi, I'm number " + id);
    }

    public void finalize()
    {
        mesg("finalizing " + id + "...");
        finalizeCounts.put(id, finalizeCounts.get(id) + 1);
        // clear! *khzh-thump*
        pointers.put(id, this);
    }

    public static void main(String[] args) {

 if (args.length == 0) {
     int id = Immortal.makeTemporaryObject();
     
     // This causes the finalizer to run (in the GC thread.)
     Immortal.kill(id);
     
     // And yet, the object is still alive!
     Immortal.doSomethingWith(id);
     
     // This will now loop infinitely, since the finalizer
     // will never be run a second time.
     Immortal.kill(id); 
 } else { 
     for(int i = 0; i < args.length; i++) {
  if (false) {
      // dummy case for uniform syntax
  } else if (args[i].equals("-nomesg")) {
      nomesg = true;
  } else if (args[i].equals("-dummysize")) {
      int num = Integer.parseInt(args[++i]);
      dummysize = num;
  } else if (args[i].equals("-num")) {
      int num = Integer.parseInt(args[++i]);
      
      for(int j = 0; j < num; j++) {
   int id = Immortal.makeTemporaryObject();
   
   // This causes the finalizer to run (in the GC thread.)
   Immortal.kill(id);
   
   // And yet, the object is still alive!
   Immortal.doSomethingWith(id);
   
   // FSK: alternative variant of kill which uses weak references
   Immortal.killAlt(id); 
      }
  } else if (args[i].equals("-blowup")) {
      int num = Integer.parseInt(args[++i]);
      
      for(int j = 0; j < num; j++) {
   int id = Immortal.makeTemporaryObject();
   
   // This causes the finalizer to run (in the GC thread.)
   Immortal.kill(id);
   
   // And yet, the object is still alive!
   Immortal.doSomethingWith(id);
   
      }
  }
     }
 }
    }
}

"Well-going programs can be typed"

Here is one of the stranger papers I've seen since the Forsythe one:

Well-going programs can be typed

The abstract:

Our idiomatically objectionable title is a pun on Milner's ``well-typed programs do not go wrong' --- because we provide a completeness result for type-checking rather than a soundness result.

We show that the well-behaved functions of untyped PCF are already expressible in typed PCF: any equivalence class of the partial logical equivalence generated from the flat natural numbers in the model given by PCF's operational semantics is inhabited by a well-typed term.

Its got Scott's $D_{\infty}$, PCF, Retractions, PERs, Logical Relations, . . .

And yet the paper itself is 50% tricks with Haskell type classes and GHC extensions.

I think the title is extremely misleading, at least based on my interpretation of the abstract. I thought the title meant: "if your untyped PCF program is well-behaved, then there is some way to add type annotations to yield a well-typed program (presumably with the same behavior)." But abstract semes to really be saying that if you have a well-behaved function, then there is some well-typed function with extensionally equivalent behavior; note the lack of constraint on the form of the typed program text and its relation to the untyped text.

test

My first post. Woot.

Catching up on West Wing. This one has Castro. Lots of Cuban-sounding music in the background. Its kind of like watching The Godfather Part II