Advertisement

Balloon types: Controlling sharing of state in data types

  • Paulo Sérgio Almeida
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1241)

Abstract

Current data abstraction mechanisms are not adequate to control sharing of state in the general case involving objects in linked structures. The pervading possibility of sharing is a source of errors and an obstacle to language implementation techniques.

We present a general extension to programming languages which makes the ability to share state a first class property of a data type, resolving a long-standing flaw in existing data abstraction mechanisms.

Balloon types enforce a strong form of encapsulation: no state reachable (directly or transitively) by a balloon object is referenced by any external object. Syntactic simplicity is achieved by relying on a non-trivial static analysis as the checking mechanism.

Balloon types are applicable in a wide range of areas such as program transformation, memory management and distributed systems. They are the key to obtaining self-contained composite objects, truly opaque data abstractions and value types—important concepts for the development of large scale, provably correct programs.

Keywords

External Object Abstract Interpretation Concrete State Object Graph Primitive Type 
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.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gul Agha and Carl Hewitt. Actors: A conceptual foundation for concurrent object-oriented programming. In P. Wegner and B. Shriver, editors, Research Directions in Object-Oriented Programming, pages 49–74. MIT Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. S. Almeida. Control of Object Sharing (provisional title). PhD thesis, University of London, Imperial College, Department of Computing, 1997. To appear.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. E. Andrews. The theory of partitions. In Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, volume 2. Addison-Wesley, 1976.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    K. Arnold and J. Gosling. The Java Programming Language. Addison-Wesley, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Franco Civello. Roles for composite objects in object-oriented analysis and design. Proceedings OOPSLA'93. SIGPLAN Notices, 28(10):376–393, October 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. Clack and S. Peyton Jones. Strictness analysis—a practical approach. In Proceedings FPCA'85, volume 201 of LNCS, pages 35–49. Springer-Verlag, September 1985.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Abstract Interpretation: A Unified Lattice Model for Static Analysis of Programs by Construction or Approximation of Fixpoints. In Proceedings 4th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 238–252, January 1977.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    O.-J. Dahl, B. Myhrhaug, and K. Nygaard. The SIMULA 67 common base language. Publication S-22, Norwegian Computing Center, Oslo, 1970.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Ghiya and L. J. Hendren. Is it a tree, a DAG, or a cyclic graph? A shape analysis for heap-directed pointers in C. In Proceedings 23rd ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 1–15, January 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Goldberg and D. Robson. Smalltalk-80: The Language and its Implementation. Addison-Wesley, 1983.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    L. J. Hendren and G. R. Gao. Designing programming languages for analyzability: A fresh look at pointer data structures. In Proceedings 4th IEEE International Conference on Computer Languages, pages 242–251, April 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. A. R. Hoare. Proof of correctness of data representations. Ada Informatica, 1:271–281, 1972.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. A. R. Hoare. Hints on programming language design. Technical Report STAN//CS-TR-73-403, Stanford University, Department of Computer Science, December 1973. Based on a keynote address presented at the ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Hogg, D. Lea, A. Wills, D. deChampeaux, and R. Holt. The Geneva convention on the treatment of object aliasing. Followup report on ECOOP'91 workshop W3: Object-oriented formal methods. OOPS Messenger, 3(2):11–16, April 1992.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    John Hogg. Islands: Aliasing protection in object-oriented languages. Proceedings OOPSLA'91. SIGPLAN Notices, 26(11):271–285, November 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sebastian Hunt. Frontiers and open sets in abstract interpretation. In Proceedings FPCA'89, pages 1–11. ACM Press, September 1989.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    N. D. Jones and F. Nielson. Abstract interpretation: a semantics-based tool for program analysis. In Handbook of Logic in Computer Science, volume 4: Semantic Modelling, pages 527–636. Oxford University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. Kent and J. Howse. Value types in Eiffel. In Proceedings TOOLS Europe 96 (TOOLS 19). Prentice Hall, 1996.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. Khoshafian and G. Copeland. Object identity. Proceedings OOPSLA'86. SIGPLAN Notices, 21(11):406–416, November 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Won Kim, Jay Banerjee, Hong-Tai Chou, Jorge F. Garza, and Darrel Woelk. Composite object support in an object-oriented database system. Proceedings OOPSLA'87. SIGPLAN Notices, 22(12):118–125, December 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bent Bruun Kristensen, Ole Lehrmann Madsen, Birger Moller-Pedersen, and Kristen Nygaard. The BETA programming language. In P. Wegner and B. Shriver, editors, Research Directions in Object-Oriented Programming, pages 7–48. MIT Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    B. W. Lampson, J. J. Horning, R. L. London, J. G. Mitchell, and G. J. Popek. Report on the programming language EUCLID. SIGPLAN Notices, 12(2), 1977.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    B. H. Liskov and J. Guttag. Abstraction and Specification in Program Development. The MIT Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. M. Lucassen and D. K. Gifford. Polymorphic effect systems. In Proceedings 15th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 47–57, January 1988.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    B. J. MacLennan. Values and objects in programming languages. SIGPLAN Notices, 17(12):70–79, December 1982.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ole Lehrmann Madsen, Birger Moller-Pedersen, and Kristen Nygaard. Object-Oriented Programming in the BETA Programming Language. Addison-Wesley, 1993.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bertrand Meyer. Eiffel: The Language. Prentice Hall, 1992.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Naftaly Minsky. Towards alias-free pointers. In Proceedings ECOOP'96, LNCS 1098, pages 189–209. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    J. C. Reynolds. Syntactic control of interference. In Proceedings 5th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 39–46, January 1978.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    M. Sagiv, T. Reps, and R. Wilhelm. Solving shape-analysis problems in languages with destructive updating. In Proceedings 23rd ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 16–31, January 1996.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    B. Stroustrup. The C++ programming language. Addison-Wesley, 1986.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Peter Wegner. Dimensions of object-based language design. Proceedings OOPSLA'87. SIGPLAN Notices, 22(12):168–182, December 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    N. Wirth. The programming language Pascal. Acta Informatica, 1:35–63, 1971.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paulo Sérgio Almeida
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ComputingImperial CollegeLondon

Personalised recommendations