Capture-Avoiding and Hygienic Program Transformations
Conference paper
Abstract
Program transformations in terms of abstract syntax trees compromise referential integrity by introducing variable capture. Variable capture occurs when in the generated program a variable declaration accidentally shadows the intended target of a variable reference. Existing transformation systems either do not guarantee the avoidance of variable capture or impair the implementation of transformations.
We present an algorithm called name-fix that automatically eliminates variable capture from a generated program by systematically renaming variables. name-fix is guided by a graph representation of the binding structure of a program, and requires name-resolution algorithms for the source language and the target language of a transformation. name-fix is generic and works for arbitrary transformations in any transformation system that supports origin tracking for names. We verify the correctness of name-fix and identify an interesting class of transformations for which name-fix provides hygiene. We demonstrate the applicability of name-fix for implementing capture-avoiding substitution, inlining, lambda lifting, and compilers for two domain-specific languages.
Keywords
State Machine Target Language Abstract Syntax Source Program Program Transformation
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Supplementary material
References
- 1.Barzilay, E., Culpepper, R., Flatt, M.: Keeping it clean with syntax parameters. In: Scheme (2011)Google Scholar
- 2.Bawden, A., Rees, J.: Syntactic closures. In: LFP, pp. 86–95. ACM (1988)Google Scholar
- 3.Clinger, W., Rees, J.: Macros that work. In: POPL, pp. 155–162. ACM (1991)Google Scholar
- 4.Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S.: Feature-based survey of model transformation approaches. IBM Systems Journal 45(3), 621–645 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.de Bruijn, N.G.: Lambda calculus notation with nameless dummies, a tool for automatic formula manipulation, with application to the Church-Rosser theorem. Indagationes Mathematicae 75(5), 381–392 (1972)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 6.de Jonge, M., Visser, E.: A language generic solution for name binding preservation in refactorings. In: LDTA. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
- 7.Dybvig, R.K., Hieb, R., Bruggeman, C.: Syntactic abstraction in scheme. Lisp and Symbolic Computation 5(4), 295–326 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Erdweg, S.: Extensible Languages for Flexible and Principled Domain Abstraction. PhD thesis, Philipps-Universität Marburg (2013)Google Scholar
- 9.Erdweg, S., van der Storm, T., Dai, Y.: Capture-avoiding and hygienic program transformations (incl. proofs). CoRR, abs/1404.5770 (2014)Google Scholar
- 10.Erdweg, S., et al.: The state of the art in language workbenches. In: Erwig, M., Paige, R.F., Van Wyk, E. (eds.) SLE 2013. LNCS, vol. 8225, pp. 197–217. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Herman, D.: A Theory of Typed Hygienic Macros. PhD thesis, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts (2012)Google Scholar
- 12.Izmaylova, A., Klint, P., Shahi, A., Vinju, J.: M3: An open model for measuring source code artifacts. arXiv:1312.1188, BENEVOL 2013 (2013)Google Scholar
- 13.Johnsson, T.: Lambda lifting: Transforming programs to recursive equations. In: Jouannaud, J.-P. (ed.) FPCA 1985. LNCS, vol. 201, pp. 190–203. Springer, Heidelberg (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Klint, P., van der Storm, T., Vinju, J.: Rascal: A domain-specific language for source code analysis and manipulation. In: SCAM, pp. 168–177 (2009)Google Scholar
- 15.Kohlbecker, E., Friedman, D.P., Felleisen, M., Duba, B.: Hygienic macro expansion. In: LFP, pp. 151–161. ACM (1986)Google Scholar
- 16.Lee, B., Grimm, R., Hirzel, M., McKinley, K.S.: Marco: Safe, expressive macros for any language. In: Noble, J. (ed.) ECOOP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7313, pp. 589–613. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.B.C.: d. S. Oliveira and A. Löh. Abstract syntax graphs for domain specific languages. In: PEPM, pp. 87–96. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
- 18.Paige, R.F., Kolovos, D.S., Polack, F.A.C.: Metamodelling for grammarware researchers. In: Czarnecki, K., Hedin, G. (eds.) SLE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7745, pp. 64–82. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Pfenning, F., Elliott, C.: Higher-order abstract syntax. In: PLDI, pp. 199–208. ACM (1988)Google Scholar
- 20.Reps, T., Teitelbaum, T., Demers, A.: Incremental context-dependent analysis for language-based editors. TOPLAS 5(3), 449–477 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Schäfer, M., Ekman, T., de Moor, O.: Sound and extensible renaming for Java. In: OOPSLA, pp. 227–294. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
- 22.Sheard, T.: Accomplishments and research challenges in meta-programming. In: Taha, W. (ed.) SAIG 2001. LNCS, vol. 2196, pp. 2–44. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Shinwell, M.R., Pitts, A.M., Gabbay, M.J.: FreshML: Programming with binders made simple. In: ICFP, pp. 263–274. ACM (2003)Google Scholar
- 24.Macko, M., Batory, D.: Scoping constructs for software generators. In: Czarnecki, K. (ed.) GCSE 1999. LNCS, vol. 1799, pp. 65–78. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Valdera, P.I., van der Storm, T., Erdweg, S.: Tracing model transformations with string origins. In: ICMT. Springer (to appear, 2014)Google Scholar
- 26.van den Bos, J., van der Storm, T.: Bringing domain-specific languages to digital forensics. In: ICSE, pp. 671–680. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
- 27.van Deursen, A., Klint, P., Tip, F.: Origin tracking. Symbolic Computation 15, 523–545 (1993)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 28.Wachsmuth, G., Konat, G.D.P., Vergu, V.A., Groenewegen, D.M., Visser, E.: A language independent task engine for incremental name and type analysis. In: Erwig, M., Paige, R.F., Van Wyk, E. (eds.) SLE 2013. LNCS, vol. 8225, pp. 260–280. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copyright information
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014