Effectiveness of Annotation-Based Static Type Inference

August 28, 2020 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› Workshop on Functional and Constraint Logic Programming

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Isabel Wingen, Philipp KΓΆrner arXiv ID 2008.12545 Category cs.PL: Programming Languages Cross-listed cs.LO Citations 1 Venue Workshop on Functional and Constraint Logic Programming Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
Benefits of static type systems are well-known: they offer guarantees that no type error will occur during runtime and, inherently, inferred types serve as documentation on how functions are called. On the other hand, many type systems have to limit expressiveness of the language because, in general, it is undecidable whether a given program is correct regarding types. Another concern that was not addressed so far is that, for logic programming languages such as Prolog, it is impossible to distinguish between intended and unintended failure and, worse, intended and unintended success without additional annotations. In this paper, we elaborate on and discuss the aforementioned issues. As an alternative, we present a static type analysis which is based on plspec. Instead of ensuring full type-safety, we aim to statically identify type errors on a best-effort basis without limiting the expressiveness of Prolog programs. Finally, we evaluate our approach on real-world code featured in the SWI community packages and a large project implementing a model checker.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Programming Languages

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted