The great attractiveness of purely functional languages is their ability to depart from sequential order of computation. Theoretically, it enables two important features of the compiler:
1) The ability to reorder computation flow, making the program implicitly parallelisable. Modern imperative language compilers, even using careful synchronization of concurrent code, still generate huge chunks of sequential instructions that need to be executed on a single processor core; a purely functional language compilers can dispatch very small chunks to many (hundreds and thousands) of cores, carefully eliminating as many execution path dependencies as possible.
2) As the compiler formalizes different types of side effects, it can detect a whole new class of program errors at compile time, including resource acquisition and releasing problems, concurrent access to shared resources, many types of deadlocks etc. It is not yet a full-fledged program verification, but it is a big step in that direction.
Scala is a semi-imperative language with strong support for functional programming and rich type system. One can isolate the purely functional core of the language which can be put on the firm mathematical foundation of dependent type theories. We argue that it is possible to treat Scala code as it's written by now as an implicit do-notation which can be then reduced to a purely functional core by means of recently introduced Scala macros. The formalism of arrows and applicative contexts can bring Scala to a full glory of an implicitly parallelisable programming language, while still keeping its syntax mostly unchanged.
Repurposing LNG terminals for Hydrogen Ammonia: Feasibility and Cost Saving
Procedure Typing for Scala
1. Procedure Typing for Scala
Procedure Typing for Scala
Alexander Kuklev∗ , Alexander Temerev‡
* Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Göttingen
‡ Founder and CEO at Miriamlaurel Sàrl, Geneva
April 10, 2012
2. Procedure Typing for Scala
Functions and procedures
In programming we have:
– pure functions;
– functions with side effects (AKA procedures).
3. Procedure Typing for Scala
Functions and procedures
In programming we have:
– pure functions;
– functions with side effects (AKA procedures).
Scala does not differentiate between them:
– both have types A => B .
5. Procedure Typing for Scala
But it should!
Static side effect tracking enables
– implicit parallelisability;
6. Procedure Typing for Scala
But it should!
Static side effect tracking enables
– implicit parallelisability;
– compile-time detection of a whole new class of problems:
(resource acquisition and releasing problems, race conditions,
deadlocks, etc.).
7. Procedure Typing for Scala
Short list of applicable methodologies:
Kleisli Arrows of Outrageous Fortune (2011, C. McBride)
Capabilities for Uniqueness and Borrowing (2010, P. Haller, M. Odersky)
Static Detection of Race Conditions [..] (2010, M. Christakis, K. Sagonas)
Static Deadlock Detection [..] (2009, F. de Boer, I. Grabe,M. Steffen)
Complete Behavioural Testing of Object-Oriented Systems using
CCS-Augmented X-Machines (2002, M. Stannett, A. J. H. Simons)
An integration testing method that is proved to find all faults
(1997, F. Ipate, M. Holcombe)
8. Procedure Typing for Scala
Specifying procedure categories
We propose a new syntax
where a function definition may include a category it belongs to:
A =>[Pure] B – pure functions;
A =>[Proc] B – procedures.
9. Procedure Typing for Scala
Specifying procedure categories
There’s a lot more than Pure and Proc
There is a whole lattice of categories between Pure and Proc :
Logged: procedures with no side effects besides logging;
Throws[E]: no side effects besides throwing exceptions of type E ;
Reads(file): no side effects besides reading the file ;
etc.
10. Procedure Typing for Scala
Specifying procedure categories
Extensible approach
An effect system should be extensible.
⇒ We must provide a way to define procedure categories.
Procedure categories are binary types like Function[_,_] or
Logged[_,_] 1
1
Definition of parameterized categories, e.g. Throws[E] or Reads(resource),
is also possible with the help of type lambdas and/or type providers.
11. Procedure Typing for Scala
Specifying procedure categories
Extensible approach
An effect system should be extensible.
⇒ We must provide a way to define procedure categories.
Procedure categories are binary types like Function[_,_] or
Logged[_,_] 1 equipped with some additional structure using an
associated type class.
1
Definition of parameterized categories, e.g. Throws[E] or Reads(resource),
is also possible with the help of type lambdas and/or type providers.
12. Procedure Typing for Scala
Specifying procedure categories
Extensible approach
Syntax details
– A =>[R] B R[A,B]
– A => B Function[A,B] , i.e. type named “Function” from the
local context, not necessarily the Function from Predef2 .
2
(A, B) should also mean Pair[A,B] from the local context, as they
must be consistent with functions: (A, B) => C ∼ A => B => C .
=
13. Procedure Typing for Scala
Specifying procedure categories
Extensible approach
Proposed syntax for definitions
def process(d: Data):
=>[Throws[InterruptedException]] Int = { ...
// Procedure types can be dependent
def copy(src: File, dest: File):
=>[Reads(src), Writes(dest)] { ...
// Pre- and postconditions can be treated as effects too:
def open(file: File):
=>[Pre{file@Closed}, Post{file@Open}] { ...
Last two examples rely on recently added dependent method types.
(N.B. Such stunts are hard to implement using type-and-effect systems.)
14. Procedure Typing for Scala
Defining procedure categories
How to define a procedure category?
15. Procedure Typing for Scala
Defining procedure categories
First of all, it should be a category in the usual mathematical sense,
i.e. we have to provide procedure composition and its neutral.
trait Category[Function[_,_]] {
def id[T]: T => T
def compose[A, B, C](f: B => C, g: A => B): A => C
}
16. Procedure Typing for Scala
Defining procedure categories
To give an example, let’s model logged functions on pure functions:
type Logged[A, B] = (A =>[Pure] (B, String))
object Logged extends Category[Logged] {
def id[T] = {x: T => (x, "")}
def compose[A, B, C](f: B => C, g: A => B) = {x: A =>
val (result1, logOutput1) = g(x)
val (result2, logOutput2) = f(result1)
(result2, logOutput1 + logOutput2)
}
}
Besides their results, logged functions produce log output of type
String. Composition of logged functions concatenates their logs.
17. Procedure Typing for Scala
Defining procedure categories
Linear functional composition is not enough.
We want to construct arbitrary circuits.
(This is the key step in enabling implicit parallelisability.)
18. Procedure Typing for Scala
Defining procedure categories
To make arbitrary circuits, we need just one additional operation
besides composition:
def affix[A, B, C, D](f: A => B, g: C => D): (A, C) => (B, D)
19. Procedure Typing for Scala
Defining procedure categories
In case of pure functions, affix is trivial:
– the execution of f and g is independent.
In case of procedures affix is not-so-trivial:
– have to pass the effects of f to the execution context of g ;
– execution order can be significant.
20. Procedure Typing for Scala
Defining procedure categories
Thus, procedures belong to a stronger structure than just a
category, namely a structure embracing the affix operation.
Such a structure is called circuitry.
21. Procedure Typing for Scala
Defining procedure categories
A circuitry is a closed monoidal category with respect to the affix
operation, where affix splits as follows:
trait Circuitry[F[_,_]] extends PairCategory[F] {
def passr[A, B, C](f: A => B): (A, C) => (B, C)
def passl[B, C, D](g: C => D): (B, C) => (B, D)
override def affix[A, B, C, D](f: A => B, g: C => D) = {
compose(passl(g), passr(f))
}
}
+ =
22. Procedure Typing for Scala
Defining procedure categories
For the mathematicians among us:
trait PairCategory[F[_,_]] extends Category[F] {
type Pair[A, B]
def assoc[X, Y, Z]: ((X, Y), Z) => (X, (Y, Z))
def unassoc[X, Y, Z]: (X, (Y, Z)) => ((X, Y), Z)
type Unit
def cancelr[X]: (X, Unit) => X
def cancell[X]: (Unit, X) => X
def uncancelr[X]: X => (X, Unit)
def uncancell[X]: X => (Unit, X)
def curry[A, B, C](f: (A, B) => C): A => B => C
def uncurry[A, B, C](f: A => B => C): (A, B) => C
def affix[A, B, C, D](f: A => B, g: C => D): (A, B) => (C, D)
}
23. Procedure Typing for Scala
Defining procedure categories
For the mathematicians among us:
trait PairCategory[F[_,_]] extends Category[F] {
type Pair[A, B]
def assoc[X, Y, Z]: ((X, Y), Z) => (X, (Y, Z))
def unassoc[X, Y, Z]: (X, (Y, Z)) => ((X, Y), Z)
type Unit
def cancelr[X]: (X, Unit) => X
def cancell[X]: (Unit, X) => X
def uncancelr[X]: X => (X, Unit)
def uncancell[X]: X => (Unit, X)
def curry[A, B, C](f: (A, B) => C): A => B => C
def uncurry[A, B, C](f: A => B => C): (A, B) => C
def affix[A, B, C, D](f: A => B, g: C => D): (A, B) => (C, D)
}
Don’t panic!
24. Procedure Typing for Scala
Defining procedure categories
For the mathematicians among us:
trait PairCategory[F[_,_]] extends Category[F] {
type Pair[A, B]
def assoc[X, Y, Z]: ((X, Y), Z) => (X, (Y, Z))
def unassoc[X, Y, Z]: (X, (Y, Z)) => ((X, Y), Z)
type Unit
def cancelr[X]: (X, Unit) => X
def cancell[X]: (Unit, X) => X
def uncancelr[X]: X => (X, Unit)
def uncancell[X]: X => (Unit, X)
def curry[A, B, C](f: (A, B) => C): A => B => C
def uncurry[A, B, C](f: A => B => C): (A, B) => C
def affix[A, B, C, D](f: A => B, g: C => D): (A, B) => (C, D)
}
Don’t panic!
In most cases the default Pair and Unit work perfectly well.
⇒ No need to understand any of this, just use with Cartesian .
25. Procedure Typing for Scala
Defining procedure categories
Elements of circuitries are called generalised arrows.
Besides procedures, circuitries provide a common formalism for:
– reversible quantum computations;
– electrical and logical circuits;
– linear and affine logic;
– actor model and other process calculi.
Circuitries provide the most general formalism for computations, see
“Multi-Level Languages are Generalized Arrows”, A. Megacz.
26. Procedure Typing for Scala
Defining procedure categories
We are talking mostly about procedure typing, so we are going to
consider some special cases:
Arrow circuitries3 : circuitries generalising =>[Pure] .
Executable categories: categories generalising to =>[Proc] .
Procedure categories: executable cartesian4 procedure circuitries.
3
AKA plain old “arrows” in Haskell and scalaz.
4
i.e. having cartesian product types.
27. Procedure Typing for Scala
Defining procedure categories
trait ArrowCircuitry[F[_,_]] extends Circuitry[F] {
def reify[A, B](f: A =>[Pure] B): A => B
... // With reify we get id and passl for free
}
trait Executable extends Category[_] {
def eval[A, B](f: A => B): A =>[Proc] B
// eval defines the execution strategy
}
trait ProcCategory[F[_,_]] extends ArrowCircuitry[F] with
Executable with Cartesian {
... // Some additional goodies
}
28. Procedure Typing for Scala
Defining procedure categories
It’s time to give a full definition of =>[Logged] :
type Logged[A, B] = (A =>[Pure] (B, String))
object LoggedCircuitryImpl extends ProcCategory[Logged] {
def reify[A, B](f: A =>[Pure] B) = {x: A => (f(x), "")}
def compose[A, B, C](f: B => C, g: A => B) = {x: A =>
val (result1, logOutput1) = g(x)
val (result2, logOutput2) = f(result1)
(result2, logOutput1 + logOutput2)
}
def passr[A, B, C](f: A => B): = {x : (A, C) =>
val (result, log) = f(x._1)
((result, x._2), log)
}
def eval[A, B](p: A => B) = {x: A =>
val (result, log) = p(x)
println(log); result
}
}
29. Procedure Typing for Scala
Defining procedure categories
It’s time to give a full definition of =>[Logged] :
type Logged[A, B] = (A =>[Pure] (B, String))
object LoggedCircuitryImpl extends ProcCategory[Logged] {
def reify[A, B](f: A =>[Pure] B) = {x: A => (f(x), "")}
def compose[A, B, C](f: B => C, g: A => B) = {x: A =>
val (result1, logOutput1) = g(x)
val (result2, logOutput2) = f(result1)
(result2, logOutput1 + logOutput2)
}
def passr[A, B, C](f: A => B): = {x : (A, C) =>
val (result, log) = f(x._1)
((result, x._2), log)
}
def eval[A, B](p: A => B) = {x: A =>
val (result, log) = p(x)
println(log); result
}
}
Wasn’t that easy?
30. Procedure Typing for Scala
Defining procedure categories
Additionally we need a companion object for Logged[_,_] type.
That’s where circuitry-specific primitives should be defined.
object Logged {
val log: Logged[Unit, Unit] = {s: String => ((),s)}
}
31. Procedure Typing for Scala
Defining procedure categories
Other circuitry-specific primitives include:
– throw and catch for =>[Throws[E]]
– shift and reset for =>[Cont]
– match/case and if/else for =>[WithChoice]
– while and recursion for =>[WithLoops]
– etc.
Often they have to be implemented with Scala macros (available in
a next major Scala release near you).
32. Procedure Typing for Scala
Language purification by procedure typing
Note that impure code is localised to the eval method.
Thus, thorough usage of procedure typing localizes
impurities to well-controlled places in libraries.
Except for these, Scala becomes a clean multilevel language,
with effective type systems inside blocks being type-and-effect
systems internal to corresponding circuitries.
33. Procedure Typing for Scala
Language purification by procedure typing
Curry-Howard-Lambek correspondence
relates type theories, logics and categories:
For cartesian closed categories:
Internal logic = constructive proposition logic
Internal language = simply-typed λ-calculus
For locally cartesian closed categories:
Internal logic = constructive predicate logic
Internal language = dependently-typed λ-calculus
...
34. Procedure Typing for Scala
Language purification by procedure typing
Curry-Howard-Lambek correspondence
relates type theories, logics and categories:
For cartesian closed categories:
Internal logic = constructive proposition logic
Internal language = simply-typed λ-calculus
For locally cartesian closed categories:
Internal logic = constructive predicate logic
Internal language = dependently-typed λ-calculus
...
Informally, the work of A. Megacz provides an extension of it:
For arrow circuitries:
Internal logics = contextual logics
Internal languages = type-and-effect extended λ-calculi
35. Procedure Typing for Scala
Language purification by procedure typing
Scala purification/modularization programme
– Design a lattice of procedure categories between Pure and
Proc . In particular, reimplement flow control primitives as
macro5 methods in companion objects of respective categories.
5
One reason for employing macros is to guarantee that scaffoldings will be
completely removed in compile time with no overhead on the bytecode level.
36. Procedure Typing for Scala
Language purification by procedure typing
Scala purification/modularization programme
– Design a lattice of procedure categories between Pure and
Proc . In particular, reimplement flow control primitives as
macro5 methods in companion objects of respective categories.
– Implement rules for lightweight effect polymorphism using a
system of implicits à la Rytz-Odersky-Haller (2012)
5
One reason for employing macros is to guarantee that scaffoldings will be
completely removed in compile time with no overhead on the bytecode level.
37. Procedure Typing for Scala
Language purification by procedure typing
Scala purification/modularization programme
– Design a lattice of procedure categories between Pure and
Proc . In particular, reimplement flow control primitives as
macro5 methods in companion objects of respective categories.
– Implement rules for lightweight effect polymorphism using a
system of implicits à la Rytz-Odersky-Haller (2012)
– Retrofit Akka with circuitries internalizing an appropriate actor
calculus + ownership/borrowing system (Haller, 2010).
5
One reason for employing macros is to guarantee that scaffoldings will be
completely removed in compile time with no overhead on the bytecode level.
38. Procedure Typing for Scala
Comparing with other notions of computation
How do circuitries compare to
other notions of computation?
39. Procedure Typing for Scala
Comparing with other notions of computation
Type-and-effect systems
Type-and-effect systems are the most well studied approach to
procedure typing:
40. Procedure Typing for Scala
Comparing with other notions of computation
Type-and-effect systems
Type-and-effect systems are the most well studied approach to
procedure typing: effects are specifiers as annotations for
“functions”; type system is extended with rules for “effects”.
41. Procedure Typing for Scala
Comparing with other notions of computation
Type-and-effect systems
Type-and-effect systems are the most well studied approach to
procedure typing: effects are specifiers as annotations for
“functions”; type system is extended with rules for “effects”.
Circuitry formalism is not an alternative, but an enclosure for
them.
42. Procedure Typing for Scala
Comparing with other notions of computation
Type-and-effect systems
Direct implementation of type-and-effect systems
– is rigid (hardly extensible) and
– requires changes to the typechecker.
43. Procedure Typing for Scala
Comparing with other notions of computation
Type-and-effect systems
Direct implementation of type-and-effect systems
– is rigid (hardly extensible) and
– requires changes to the typechecker.
Embedding effects into the type system by means of
the circuitry formalism resolves the issues above.
44. Procedure Typing for Scala
Comparing with other notions of computation
Monads
Arrows generalise monads
In Haskell, monads are used as basis for imperative programming,
but they are often not general enough (see Hughes, 2000).
Monads are similar to cartesian arrow circuitries. The only
difference is that they are not equipped with non-linear composition.
45. Procedure Typing for Scala
Comparing with other notions of computation
Monads
Monads
– do not compose well,
– prescribe rigid execution order,
– are not general enough for concurrent computations.
46. Procedure Typing for Scala
Comparing with other notions of computation
Monads
Monads
– do not compose well,
– prescribe rigid execution order,
– are not general enough for concurrent computations.
Circuitries were invented to cure this.
47. Procedure Typing for Scala
Comparing with other notions of computation
Applicatives
Applicatives are a special case of arrows...
If procedures of type =>[A] never depend on effects of other
procedures of the same type, A is called essentially commutative.
Example
=>[Reads(config), Writes(log), Throws[NonBlockingException]]
Essentially commutative arrows arise from applicative functors.
They are flexible and easy to handle: you don’t have to propagate
effects, just accumulate them behind the scenes.
48. Procedure Typing for Scala
Comparing with other notions of computation
Applicatives
...but not a closed special case!
Composing applicatives may produce non-commutative circuitries
like =>[Reads(file), Writes(file)] .
Procedures of this type are no longer effect-independent: effect of
writes have to be passed to subsequent reads.
Besides these, there are also inherently non-commutative arrows
such as those arising from monads6 , comonads and Hoare triples7 .
6
e.g. Tx = transaction monad, Cont = continuation passing monad.
7
pre- and postconditioned arrows.
49. Procedure Typing for Scala
Comparing with other notions of computation
Traditional imperative approach
Can we do everything available in imperative
languages with arrows and circuitries?
50. Procedure Typing for Scala
Comparing with other notions of computation
Traditional imperative approach
Can we do everything available in imperative
languages with arrows and circuitries?
Any imperative code can be reduced to compose and affix.
51. Procedure Typing for Scala
Comparing with other notions of computation
Traditional imperative approach
Can we do everything available in imperative
languages with arrows and circuitries?
Any imperative code can be reduced to compose and affix.
The reduction process is known as variable elimination, it can be
understood as translation to a concatenative language like Forth.
52. Procedure Typing for Scala
Comparing with other notions of computation
Traditional imperative approach
Can we do everything available in imperative
languages with arrows and circuitries?
Any imperative code can be reduced to compose and affix.
The reduction process is known as variable elimination, it can be
understood as translation to a concatenative language like Forth.
(The concatenative languages’ juxtaposition is an overloaded operator reducing
to either compose or affix depending on how operands’ types match.)
53. Procedure Typing for Scala
Comparing with other notions of computation
Traditional imperative approach
Can we do everything available in imperative
languages with arrows and circuitries?
Any imperative code can be reduced to compose and affix.
The reduction process is known as variable elimination, it can be
understood as translation to a concatenative language like Forth.
(The concatenative languages’ juxtaposition is an overloaded operator reducing
to either compose or affix depending on how operands’ types match.)
But! Writing code this way can be quite cumbersome.
54. Procedure Typing for Scala
Do-notation
Defining procedure categories is easy
enough. How about using them?
We develop a quasi-imperative notation8 and implement it using
macros.
Our notation shares syntax with usual Scala imperative code...
...but has different semantics: it compiles to a circuit of
appropriate type instead of being executed immediately.
8
Akin to Haskell’s do-notation, but much easier to use.
55. Procedure Typing for Scala
Do-notation
Defining procedure categories is easy
enough. How about using them?
We develop a quasi-imperative notation8 and implement it using
macros.
Our notation shares syntax with usual Scala imperative code...
...but has different semantics: it compiles to a circuit of
appropriate type instead of being executed immediately.
Circuit notation for Scala is the topic of the part II...
8
Akin to Haskell’s do-notation, but much easier to use.
56. Procedure Typing for Scala
Do-notation
Do-notation example
...but here’s a small example to keep your interest
Even pure functions have a side effect: they consume time.
=>[Future] is an example of a retrofitting procedure category9 .
=>[Future] {
val a = alpha(x)
val b = beta(x)
after (a | b) {
Log.info("First one is completed")
}
after (a & b) {
Log.info("Both completed")
}
gamma(a, b)
}
9
its reify is a macro, so any procedures can be retrofitted to be =>[Future].
57. Procedure Typing for Scala
Do-notation
Literature:
– The marriage of effects and monads, P. Wadler, P. Thiemann
– Generalising monads to arrows, J. Hughes
– The Arrow Calculus, S. Lindley, P. Wadler, and J. Yallop
– Categorical semantics for arrows, B. Jacobs et al.
– What is a Categorical Model of Arrows?, R. Atkey
– Parameterized Notions of Computation, R. Atkey
– Multi-Level Languages are Generalized Arrows, A. Megacz
58. Procedure Typing for Scala
Syntax for Circuitires
Part II: Syntax for Circuitires
A cup of coffee?
59. Procedure Typing for Scala
Syntax for Circuitires
Implicit Unboxing
How do you use an arrow (say f: Logged[Int, String] ) in
present Scala code?
println(f(5)) seems to be the obvious way, but that’s
impossible, application is not defined for f.
To facilitate such natural notation, we need implicit unboxing.
60. Procedure Typing for Scala
Syntax for Circuitires
Implicit Unboxing
Preliminaries
A wrapping is a type F[_] equipped with eval[T](v: F[T]): T
and reify[T](expr: => T): F[T] (reify often being a macro) so
that
eval(reify(x)) ≡ x and
reify(eval(x)) ≡ x for all x of the correct type.
61. Procedure Typing for Scala
Syntax for Circuitires
Implicit Unboxing
Preliminaries
A wrapping is a type F[_] equipped with eval[T](v: F[T]): T
and reify[T](expr: => T): F[T] (reify often being a macro) so
that
eval(reify(x)) ≡ x and
reify(eval(x)) ≡ x for all x of the correct type.
A prototypical example where reify is a macro is Expr[T]. Example
with no macros involved is Future[T] (with await as eval).
62. Procedure Typing for Scala
Syntax for Circuitires
Implicit Unboxing
Preliminaries
Implicit unboxing is this: whenever a value of the wrapping type
F[T] is found where a value of type T is accepted, its eval is called
implicitly.
In homoiconic languages (including Scala), all expressions can be
considered initially having the type Expr[T] and being unboxed into
T by an implicit unboxing rule Expr[T] => T .
63. Procedure Typing for Scala
Syntax for Circuitires
Implicit Unboxing
Syntax proposal
Let’s introduce an instruction implicit[F] enabling implicit
unboxing for F in its scope.
Implicit contexts can be implemented using macros:
– macro augments the relevant scope by F.reify as an implicit
conversion from F[T] to T;
– F.eval is applied to every occurrence of a symbol having or
returning type F[T] which is defined outside of its scope.
64. Procedure Typing for Scala
Syntax for Circuitires
Implicit Unboxing
Code that uses futures and promises can be made much more
readable by implicit unboxing.
An example: dataflows in Akka 2.0. Presently they look like this:
flow {
z << (x() + y())
if (v() > u) println("z = " + z())
}
65. Procedure Typing for Scala
Syntax for Circuitires
Implicit Unboxing
Now this can be recast without any unintuitive empty parentheses:
flow {
z << x + y
if (v > u) println("z = " + z)
}
66. Procedure Typing for Scala
Syntax for Circuitires
Implicit Unboxing
Back to our Logged example:
implicit[Logged]
def example(f: Int =>[Logged] String, n: Int): List[String] {
f(n).split(", ")
}
Which translates to:
def example(f: Int =>[Logged] String, n: Int): List[String] {
LoggedCircuitryImpl.eval(f)(n).split(", ")
}
67. Procedure Typing for Scala
Syntax for Circuitires
Purifying Scala
Now, which procedure category should example() belong to?
As it evaluates =>[Logged], it should be =>[Logged] itself. This
allows its reinterpretation without any usage of eval:
def example(f: Int =>[Logged] String, n: Int): List[String] = {
import LoggedCircuitryImpl._
reify{n} andThen f andThen reify{_.split(", ")}
}
This is now a pure code generating a new circuit of the type
=>[Logged] based on the existing one (f) and some pure functions.
68. Procedure Typing for Scala
Syntax for Circuitires
Purifying Scala
Purity Declaration
Let’s introduce @pure annotation which explicitly forbids calling
any functions with side effects and assignments of foreign variables.
This renders the code pure.
Procedure with side effects have to be composed by circuit
composition operations which are pure. The execution of
procedures, which is impure, always lies outside of the scope.
All code examples below are to be read as @pure .
69. Procedure Typing for Scala
Syntax for Circuitires
Purifying Scala
Inside of @pure implicit unboxing for arrows becomes
implicit circuit notation, which is operationally
indistinguishable, but semantically different.
70. Procedure Typing for Scala
Syntax for Circuitires
Circuit notation
Circuit notation, general idea:
– write circuitry type like =>[X] in front of a braced code block;
– the code block will be reinterpreted as a circuitry of the given
type (via macros).
72. Procedure Typing for Scala
Syntax for Circuitires
Circuit notation
In presence of implicit[X] every free braced block {...}
which uses external symbols of the type =>[X] should be
treated as =>[X] {...} , an implicit form of circuit syntax.
73. Procedure Typing for Scala
Syntax for Circuitires
Circuit notation
The desugaring rules producing operationally indistinguishable
circuits from imperative-style code blocks are quite complicated,
but certainly doable.
To make the other direction possible, we need an additional
operator: after .
74. Procedure Typing for Scala
Syntax for Circuitires
Circuit notation
Consider two arrows f: Unit => Unit and g: Unit => Unit .
They can be composed in two ways: f affix g (out-of-order) and
f andThen g (in-order).
affix in circuit notation will obviously look like f; g , though for
andThen we need some new syntax:
=>[Future] {
val n = f
after(n) g
}
75. Procedure Typing for Scala
Syntax for Circuitires
Circuit notation
Without after , =>[Future] and other similar circuitries respect
only dataflow ordering, but ignore the order of independent effects
(e.g. writing into a log).
By combining usual imperative notation and after ,
any possible circuit configurations can be achieved.
76. Procedure Typing for Scala
Syntax for Circuitires
Circuit notation
Now the example stated above is fully understandable:
=>[Future] {
val a = alpha(x)
val b = beta(x)
after (a | b) {
Log.info("First one is completed")
}
after (a & b) {
Log.info("Both completed")
}
gamma(a, b)
}
( after trivially supports any combinations of ands and ors.)
77. Procedure Typing for Scala
Syntax for Circuitires
Circuit notation
Blocks as Objects
For the sake of composability, blocks should be treated as
anonymous classes extending their arrow type:
=>[Future] {
val result = {
@expose val partialResult = compute1(x)
compute2(partialResult)
}
after (result.partialResult) {
Log.info("Partial result ready")
}
}
The result in the after context is not just =>[Future] Int , but
its anonymous descendant with a public member partialResult .
78. Procedure Typing for Scala
Syntax for Circuitires
Circuit notation
Of course, it should also work for named blocks:
def lengthyComputation(x: Double): Double = {
var _progress = 0.0 // goes from 0.0 to 1.0
@expose def progress = _progress // public getter
... // _progress is updated when necessary
}
val f = future someLengthyCalculation(x)
while (!f.isDone) {
Log.info("Progress: " + f.progress)
wait(500 ms)
}
(This is a perfect example of what can easily be done with macros.)
79. Procedure Typing for Scala
Syntax for Circuitires
Circuit notation
The exact desugaring rules are quite complex (but perfectly real).
We hope these examples gave you some insight how everything
might work.
Thank you!