Leslie Lamport
Lawrence C. Paulson
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Most specification languages have a type system. Type systems are hard to get right, and getting them wrong can lead to inconsistencies. Set theory can serve as the basis for a specification language without types. This possibility, which has been widely overlooked, offers many advantages. Untyped set theory is simple and is more flexible than any simple typed formalism. Polymorphism, overloading, and subtyping can make a type system more powerful, but at the cost of increased somplexity, and such refinements can never attain the flexibility of having no types at all. Typed formalisms have advantages, too, stemming from the power of mechanical type checking. While types serve little purpose in hand proofs, they do help with mechanized proofs. In the absence of verificaiton, type checking can catch errors in specifications. It may be possible to have the best of both worlds by adding typing annotations to an untyped specification language.
We consider only specification languages, not programming languages.
- APT, K. R. AND OLDEROG, E.-R. 1990. Verification of Sequential and Concurrent Programs. Texts and Monographs in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, New York, Berlin, Heidelberg, London, Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Barcelona. Google Scholar
- BARRAS, B., BOUTIN, S., CORNES, C., COURANT, J., FILLIBTRE, J.-C., GIMINEZ, E., HERBELIN, H., HUET, G., MUQOZ, C., MUaTHY, C., PAaENT, C., PAULIN-MOHRING, C., SAOBI, A., AND WERNER, B. 1997. The Coq proof assistant reference manual : Version 6.1. Technical Report RT-0203 (May), INRIA-Rocquencourt. Version 5.8.Google Scholar
- BOYER, R. S. AND MOOaE, J. S. 1988. A Computational Logic Handbook. Academic Press. Google Scholar
- CHANDY, K. M. AND MISRA, J. 1988. Parallel Program Design. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts. Google Scholar
- CONSTABLE, R. L., ALLEN, S. F., BROMLEY, H. M., CLEAVELAND, W. R., CaEMEa, J. F., HAaPEa, R. W., HOWE, D. J., KNOBLOCK, T. B., MENDLER, N. P., PANAGADEN, P., SASAKI, J. T., AND SMITH, S. F. 1986. Implementing Mathematics with the Nuprl Proof Development System. Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar
- COQUAND, T. 1990. Metamathematical investigations of a calculus of constructions. In P. ODIFREDDI (Ed.), Logic and Computer Science, pp. 91-122. Academic Press.Google Scholar
- DE BRUIJN, N. G. 1995. On the roles of types in mathematics. In P. DE GROOTE (Ed.), The Curry-Howard isomorphism, pp. 27-54. Academia.Google Scholar
- DUMMETT, M. 1977. Elements of Intuitionism. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- ENGBERG, W., GRONNING, P., AND LAMPORT, L. 1992. Mechanical verification of concurrent systems with TLA. In G. v. BOCHMANN AND D. K. PROBST (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, Volume 663 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Berlin, pp. 44-55. Springer-Verlag. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference, CAV'92. Google Scholar
- FARMER, W. M. 1990. A partial functions version of church's simple theory of types. Journal of Symbolic Logic 55, 3, 1269-1291.Google Scholar
- FISHER, K. AND MITCHELL, J. C. 1995. The development of type systems for object-oriented languages. Theory and Practice of Object Systems 1, 3, 189-220. Google Scholar
- FITZGERALD, J. S., LARSEN, P. G., BROOKES, T. M., AND GREEN, M. A. 1995. Developing a security-critical system using formal and conventional methods. In M. HINCHEY AND J. P. BOWEN (Eds.), Applications of Formal Methods, pp. 333-356. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- GARLAND, S. J. AND GUTTAG, J. V. 1989. An overview of LP, the Larch Prover. In N. DER- SHOWITZ (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Rewriting Techniques and Applications, Volume 355 of Lecture Notes on Computer Science, pp. 137-151. Springer-Verlag. Google Scholar
- G(SDEL, K. 1983. Russell's mathematical logic. In P. BENACERRAF AND H. PUTNAM (Eds.), Philosophy of Mathematics: Selected Readings (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. First published in 1944.Google Scholar
- GORDON, M. J. C. AND MELHAM, T. F. 1993. Introduction to HOL: A Theorem Proving Environment for Higher Order Logic. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
- GRIES, D. 1981. The Science of Programming. Springer-Verlag. Google Scholar
- GRIES, D. AND SCHNEIDER, F. B. 1993. A Logical Approach to Discrete Math. Springer-Verlag, New York. Google Scholar
- GUNTER, C. A. AND SCOTT, D. S. 1990. Semantic domains. In J. VAN LEEUWEN (Ed.), Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science: Volume B: Formal Models and Semantics, pp. 633-674. Elsevier. Google Scholar
- GUTTAG, J. V. AND HORNING, J. J. 1978. The algebraic specification of abstract data types. Acta Informatica 10, 27-52.Google Scholar
- HALMOS, P. R. 1960. Naive Set Theory. Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
- HEHNER, E. C. R. 1984. Predicative programming. Commun. ACM 27, 2 (Feb.), 134-151. Google Scholar
- HUDAK, P., JONES, S. P., AND WADLER, P. 1992. Report on the programming language Haskell: A non-strict, purely functional language. SIGPLAN Notices 27, 5 (May). Version 1.2. Google Scholar
- HUET, G. 1997. Re: types and extremism. Email to Leslie Lamport. Internet message sent on April 25, 1997 23:11:37 MET DST, number [email protected].Google Scholar
- KAUFMANN, M. AND MOORE, J. S. 1996. ACL2: An industrial strength version of Nqthm. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference on Computer Assurance (COMPASS-96), pp. 23-34. IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
- LAM, S. S. AND SHANKAR, A. U. 1984. Protocol verification via projections. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-10, 4 (July), 325-342.Google Scholar
- LEISENRING, A. C. 1969. Mathematical Logic and Hilbert's c-Symbol. Gordon and Breach, New York.Google Scholar
- MANNA, Z. AND PNUELI, A. 1991. The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems. Springer-Verlag, New York. Google Scholar
- MELHAM, T. F. 1989. Automating recursive type definitions in higher order logic. In G. BIRTWISTLE AND P. t. SUBRAHMANYAM (Eds.), Current Trends in Hardware Verification and Automated Theorem Proving, pp. 341-386. Springer. Google Scholar
- MILNER, R. 1978. A theory of type polymorphism in programming. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 17, 348-375.Google Scholar
- MITCHELL, J. C. 1991. Type inference with simple subtypes. Journal of Functional Programruing 1, 3 (July), 245-285.Google Scholar
- NELSON, G. (Ed.) 1991. Systems Programming with Modula-3. Series in Innovative Technology. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Google Scholar
- OWRE, S. 1998. PVS 2.1 patches (2.417). Email to [email protected]. Internet message sent on Sat, Feb 7, 1998 02:53:40 -0800, number [email protected].Google Scholar
- OWRE, S., RUSHBY, J., SHANKAR, N., AND VON HENKE, F. 1995. Formal verification for faulttolerant architectures: Prolegomena to the design of PVS. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 21, 2 (Feb.), 107-125. Google Scholar
- PAULSON, L. C. 1985. Verifying the unification algorithm in LCF. Science of Computer Programruing 5, 143-170. Google Scholar
- PAULSON, L. C. 1993. Set theory for verification: I. From foundations to functions. Journal of Automated Reasoning 11, 3, 353-389. Google Scholar
- PAULSON, L. C. 1994a. A fixedpoint approach to implementing (co)inductive definitions. In A. BUNDY (Ed.), 12th International Conference on Automated Deduction, LNAI 814, pp. 148- 161. Springer. Google Scholar
- PAULSON~ L. C. 1994b. Isabelle: A Generic Theorem Prover. Springer. LNCS 828.Google Scholar
- PAULSON~ L. C. 1995. Set theory for verification: II. Induction and recursion. Journal of Automated Reasoning 15, 2, 167-215.Google Scholar
- PAULSON, L. C. 1996. ML for the Working Programmer (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
- QUAIFE, A. 1992. Automated deduction in yon Neumann-Bernays-GSdel set theory. Journal of Automated Reasoning 8, 1, 91-147. Google Scholar
- SCOTT~ D. 1979. Identity and existence in intuitionistic logic. In M. P. FOURMAN (Ed.), Applications of Sheaves, pp. 660-696. Springer. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 753.Google Scholar
- THOMPSON~ S. 1991. Type Theory and Functional Programming. Addison-Wesley. Google Scholar
- WADLER~ P. AND BLOTT~ S. 1989. How to make ad-hoc polymorphism less ad hoc. In 16th Annual Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 60-76. ACM Press. Google Scholar
- WHITEHEAD~ A. N. AND RUSSELL~ B. 1962. Principia Mathematica. Cambridge University Press. Paperback edition to *56, abridged from the 2nd edition (1927).Google Scholar
- WRIGHT~ A. I~. AND CARTWRIGHT~ R. 1997. A practical soft type system for Scheme. ACM Trans. on Programm. Lang. Syst. 19, 1 (Jan.), 87-152. Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Should your specification language be typed
Recommendations
A church-style intermediate language for MLF
MLF is a type system that seamlessly merges ML-style implicit but second-class polymorphism with System-F explicit first-class polymorphism. We present xMLF, a Church-style version of MLF with full type information that can easily be maintained during ...
Integrating typed and untyped code in a scripting language
POPL '10: Proceedings of the 37th annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languagesMany large software systems originate from untyped scripting language code. While good for initial development, the lack of static type annotations can impact code-quality and performance in the long run. We present an approach for integrating untyped ...
MLF for everyone (users, implementers, and designers)
ML '07: Proceedings of the 2007 workshop on Workshop on MLMLF is an alternative to ML that permits second-order polymorphism as in System F but retains (partial) type inference a la ML. Type annotations are requested only on parameters of functions that are used polymorphically. Type abstractions and type ...
Comments