Type Error Slicing in Implicitly Typed Higher-Order Languages

  • Christian Haack
  • J. B. Wells
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2618)

Abstract

Previous methods have generally identified the location of a type error as a particular program point or the program subtree rooted at that point. We present a new approach that identifies the location of a type error as a set of program points (a slice) all of which are necessary for the type error. We describe algorithms for finding minimal type error slices for implicitly typed higher-order languages like Standard ML.

References

  1. [1]
    M. Beaven, R. Stansifer. Explaining type errors in polymorphic languages. ACM Letters on Programming Languages and Systems, 2, 1993.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    K. L. Bernstein, E. W. Stark. Debugging type errors (full version). Technical report, State University of New York, Stony Brook, 1995.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    O. Chitil. Compositional explanation of types and algorithmic debugging of type errors. In Proc. 6th Int’l Conf. Functional Programming. ACM Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    V. Chopella. Unification source-tracking with application to diagnosis of type inference. PhD thesis, Indiana University, 2002.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    V. Chopella, C. T. Haynes. Diagnosis of ill-typed programs. Technical Report 426, Indiana University, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    L. Damas, R. Milner. Principal type schemes for functional programs. In Conf. Rec. 9th Ann. ACM Symp. Princ. of Prog. Langs., 1982.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    L. M. M. Damas. Type assignment in Programming Languages. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1985.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    T. B. Dinesh, F. Tip. A slicing-based approach for locating type errors. In Proceedings of the USENIX conference on Domain-Specific Languages, Santa Barbara, California, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    D. Duggan, F. Bent. Explaining type inference. Sci. Comput. Programming, 27, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    C. Flanagan, M. Flatt, S. Krishnamurthi, S. Weirich, M. Felleisen. Catching bugs in the web of program invariants. In Proc. ACM SIGPLAN’ 96 Conf. Prog. Lang. Design & Impl., 1996.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    B. Heeren, J. Hage. Parametric type inferencing for helium. Technical Report UU-CS-2002-035, University Utrecht, 2002.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    B. Heeren, J. Hage, D. Swierstra. Generalizing Hindley-Milner type inference algorithms. Technical Report UU-CS-2002-031, University Utrecht, 2002.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    B. Heeren, J. Jeuring, D. Swierstra, P. A. Alcocer. Improving type-error messages in functional languages. Technical Report UU-CS-2002-009, University Utrecht, 2002.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    T. Jim. What are principal typings and what are they good for? In POPL’ 96 [22].Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    G. F. Johnson, J. A. Walz. A maximum flow approach to anomaly isolation in unification-based incremental type inference. In POPL’ 96 [22].Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    P. Kanellakis, H. Mairson, J. C. Mitchell. Unification and ML type reconstruction. In J.-L. Lassez, G. Plotkin, eds., Computational Logic: Essays in Honor of Alan Robinson. MIT Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    A. J. Kfoury, J. Tiuryn, P. Urzyczyn. An analysis of ML typability. J. ACM, 41(2), 1994.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    O. Lee, K. Yi. Proofs about a folklore let-polymorphic type inference algorithm. ACM Trans. on Prog. Langs. & Systs., 20(4), 1998.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    B. J. McAdam. On the unification of substitutions in type inference. In K. Hammond, A. J. T. Davie, C. Clack, eds., Implementation of Functional Languages (IFL’98), vol. 1595 of LNCS, London, UK, 1998. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    B. J. McAdam. Generalising techniques for type debugging. In Trinder et al. [25].Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    R. Milner, M. Tofte, R. Harper, D. B. MacQueen. The Denition of Standard ML (Revised). MIT Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  22. [23]
    G. S. Port. A simple approach to finding the cause of non-unifiability. In Proc. Fifth International Conference on Logic Programming. MIT Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  23. [24]
    Z. Shao, A. Appel. Smartest recompilation. In Conf. Rec. 20th Ann. ACM Symp. Princ. of Prog. Langs., 1993.Google Scholar
  24. [25]
    P. Trinder, G. Michaelson, H.-W. Loidl, eds. Trends in Func. Programming. Intellect, 2000.Google Scholar
  25. [26]
    M. Wand. Finding the source of type errors. In Conf. Rec. 13th Ann. ACM Symp. Princ. of Prog. Langs., 1986.Google Scholar
  26. [27]
    D. A. Wolfram. Intractable unifiability problems and backtracking. In Proc. Third International Conference on Logic Programming, vol. 225 of LNCS, 1986.Google Scholar
  27. [28]
    J. YANG. Explaining type errors by finding the source of a type conflict. In Trinder et al. [25].Google Scholar
  28. [29]
    J. YANG, G. Michaelson, P. Trinder. Explaining polymorphic types. Computer Journal, 200X. to appear.Google Scholar
  29. [30]
    J. YANG, G. Michaelson, P. Trinder, J. B. Wells. Improved type error reporting. In [Draft] Proc. 12th Int’l Workshop Implementation Functional Languages, Aachen, Germany, 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Haack
    • 1
  • J. B. Wells
    • 1
  1. 1.Heriot-Watt UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations