Abstract
In call-by-value languages, some mutually-recursive definitions can be safely evaluated to build recursive functions or cyclic data structures, but some definitions (let rec x = x + 1) contain vicious circles and their evaluation fails at runtime. We propose a new static analysis to check the absence of such runtime failures. We present a set of declarative inference rules, prove its soundness with respect to the reference source-level semantics of Nordlander, Carlsson, and Gill [2008], and show that it can be directed into an algorithmic backwards analysis check in a surprisingly simple way. Our implementation of this new check replaced the existing check used by the OCaml programming language, a fragile syntactic criterion which let several subtle bugs slip through as the language kept evolving. We document some issues that arise when advanced features of a real-world functional language (exceptions in first-class modules, GADTs, etc.) interact with safety checking for recursive definitions.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 45 |
| Journal | Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages |
| Volume | 5 |
| Issue number | POPL |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Jan 2021 |
Keywords
- ML
- call-by-value
- functional programming
- recursion
- semantics
- types
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'A practical mode system for recursive definitions'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver