A List of Successes That Can Change the World pp 56-72

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9600) | Cite as

Counting Successes: Effects and Transformations for Non-deterministic Programs

  • Nick Benton
  • Andrew Kennedy
  • Martin Hofmann
  • Vivek Nigam
Chapter

Abstract

We give a simple effect system for non-deterministic programs, tracking static approximations to the number of results that may be produced by each computation. A relational semantics for the effect system establishes the soundness of both the analysis and its use in effect-based program transformations.

References

  1. 1.
    Ahman, D., Plotkin, G.D.: Refinement types for algebraic effects. In: Abstracts of the 21st Meeting ‘Types for Proofs and Programs’ (TYPES), Institute of Cybernetics, Tallinn University of Technology, pp. 10–11 (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benton, N.: Simple relational correctness proofs for static analyses and program transformations. In: 31st ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), pp. 14–25. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benton, N., Buchlovsky, P.: Semantics of an effect analysis for exceptions. In: 3rd ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Types in Language Design and Implementation (TLDI), pp. 15–26. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benton, N., Hofmann, M., Nigam, V.: Abstract effects and proof-relevant logical relations. In: 41st ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), pp. 619–632. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benton, N., Hofmann, M., Nigam, V.: Effect-dependent transformations for concurrent programs arXiv:1510.02419 (2015)
  6. 6.
    Benton, N., Hughes, J., Moggi, E.: Monads and effects. In: Barthe, G., Dybjer, P., Pinto, L., Saraiva, J. (eds.) APPSEM 2000. LNCS, vol. 2395, p. 42. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Benton, A., Kennedy, L. Beringer, N., Hofmann, M.: Relational semantics for effect-based program transformations with dynamic allocation. In: 9th International ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming (PPDP), pp. 87–96. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Benton, N., Kennedy, A., Hofmann, M.O., Beringer, L.: Reading, writing and relations: towards extensional semantics for effects analyses. In: Kobayashi, N. (ed.) APLAS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4279, pp. 114–130. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Benton, N., Kennedy, A., Russell, G.: Compiling Standard ML to Java bytecodes. In: Third ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming (ICFP), pp. 129–140. ACM (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Braem, C., Le Charlier, B., Modart, S., Van Hentenryck, P.: Cardinality analysis of Prolog. In: International Symposium on Logic Programming, pp. 457–471. MIT Press (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Claessen, K., Wadler, P. et al.: Laws for monads with zero and plus. In: Haskell mailing list, May 1997. http://www.mail-archive.com/haskell%40haskell.org/msg01583.html. Accessed January 2016
  12. 12.
    Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Abstract interpretation: a unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In: Fourth ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), pp. 238–252. ACM (1977)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Debray, S.K., Warren, D.S.: Functional computations in logic programs. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. (TOPLAS) 11(3), 451–481 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fischer, S., Kiselyov, O., Shan, C.-C.: Purely functional lazy nondeterministic programming. J. Funct. Program. 21(4/5), 413–465 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gifford, D.K., Lucassen, J.M.: Integrating functional and imperative programming. In: ACM Conference on LISP and Functional Programming, pp. 28–38. ACM (1986)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Henderson, F., Somogyi, Z., Conway, T.: Determinism analysis in the Mercury compiler. In: Proceedings of the Australian Computer Science Conference, pp. 337–34 (1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hinze, R.: Deriving backtracking monad transformers. In: Fifth ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming (ICFP), pp. 186–197. ACM (2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kammar, O., Plotkin, G.D.: Algebraic foundations for effect-dependent optimizations. In: 39th ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), pp. 349–360. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Katsumata, S.: Parametric effect monads and semantics of effect systems. In: 41st ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), pp. 633–646. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    López-García, P., Bueno, F., Hermenegildo, M.V.: Determinacy analysis for logic programs using mode and type information. In: Etalle, S. (ed.) LOPSTR 2004. LNCS, vol. 3573, pp. 19–35. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lucassen, J.M., Gifford, D.K.: Polymorphic effect systems. In: 15th ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), pp. 47–57. ACM (1988)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moggi, E.: Computational lambda-calculus and monads. In: 4th Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), pp. 14–23. IEEE Computer Society (1989)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Peyton Jones, S., Wadler, P.: Comprehensive comprehensions. In: ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Haskell, pp. 61–72. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reynolds, J.C.: The meaning of types - from intrinsic to extrinsic semantics. Technical report BRICS RS-00-32, BRICS, University of Aarhus, December 2000Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rivas, E., Jaskelioff, M., Schrijvers, T.: From monoids to near-semirings: the essence of monadplus and alternative. In: 17th International Symposium on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming (PPDP), pp. 196–207. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tolmach, A.: Optimizing ML using a hierarchy of monadic types. In: Leroy, X., Ohori, A. (eds.) TIC 1998. LNCS, vol. 1473, pp. 97–115. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Uustalu, T.: A divertimento on MonadPlus and nondeterminism. J. Logical Algebraic Methods Program. (2016, to appear)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wadler, P.: How to replace failure by a list of successes: a method for exception handling, backtracking, and pattern matching in lazy functional languages. In: Jouannaud, J.-P. (ed.) FPCA 1985. LNCS, vol. 201, pp. 113–128. Springer, Heidelberg (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wadler, P.: Theorems for free!. In: Fourth International Symposium on Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architecture (FPCA), pp. 347–359. ACM (1989)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wadler, P.: The marriage of effects and monads. In: Third ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming (ICFP), pp. 63–74. ACM (1998)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wadler, P., Thiemann, P.: The marriage of effects and monads. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 4(1), 1–32 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yakeley, A. et al.: MonadPlus reform proposal (2006). https://wiki.haskell.org/MonadPlus_reform_proposal. Accessed January 2016

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nick Benton
    • 1
  • Andrew Kennedy
    • 2
  • Martin Hofmann
    • 3
  • Vivek Nigam
    • 4
  1. 1.Microsoft ResearchCambridgeUK
  2. 2.FacebookLondonUK
  3. 3.Ludwig-Maximilians-UniversitätMünchenGermany
  4. 4.UFPBJoao PessoaBrazil

Personalised recommendations