Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
Part iii evolving the ml module systemchapter 8 evolving the ml internal language.
| Content Provider | CiteSeerX |
|---|---|
| Abstract | Parts I and II of this thesis have been devoted to achieving a clearer understanding of the ML module system and of the problem of extending ML with recursive modules. Based on this understanding, I described in Section 2.2 a proposal for unifying the existing variants of the ML module system, and in Section 5.4 a proposal for extending ML with recursive modules. It is time to make those proposals concrete. In this and the next chapter, I will use the Harper-Stone interpretation of Standard ML [32] as the framework and starting point for defining a new, evolved dialect of ML. As described in Section 2.2.3, the Harper-Stone framework (hereafter, HS) defines SML by translating (or “elaborating”) the programmer-level “external ” language (EL) into an “internal ” language (IL), which is defined by a type system. Following their approach, I will formalize my internal language in the present chapter and my external language in the next chapter. My internal language is based very closely on the module type system I developed in Chapters 3 and 4 and extended in Chapter 6, which I will refer to as the “simplified IL. ” The differences between the simplified and actual IL’s are mostly superficial. For instance, to facilitate the understanding of my new design by one who is already familiar with HS, I have chosen in most cases to use the HS conventions for naming metavariables rather than my own naming conventions from earlier in the thesis (e.g., I use the metavariables mod and sig here instead of M and S to stand for modules and signatures). There are a few non-trivial differences, however, which I discuss in Section 8.1. For those familiar with the details of Harper and Stone’s formalism, I also discuss the ways in which my IL differs from theirs. Sections 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4 present the syntax, static semantics and dynamic semantics of my IL, respectively. As the IL is for the most part very similar to the simplified IL, I do not give an explicit typechecking algorithm or repeat the meta-theoretic development of Chapters 3, 4 and 6. Adapting them to the actual IL is completely straightforward. |
| File Format | |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Subject Keyword | Part Iii Evolving Internal Language Ml Internal Language Ml Module Systemchapter Next Chapter Ml Module System Recursive Module Actual Il Present Chapter Standard Ml Type System Clearer Understanding Programmer-level External Language Dynamic Semantics Non-trivial Difference Static Semantics Module Type System Il Differs Evolved Dialect Meta-theoretic Development Simplified Il Harper-stone Framework Metavariables Mod Naming Convention External Language H Convention Harper-stone Interpretation New Design |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Thesis |
