Changes in / [ae6cc8b:3195953]

File:

• doc/generic_types/generic_types.tex (modified) (6 diffs)

doc/generic_types/generic_types.tex

@@ -213 +213 @@
 Hence, programmers can easily form new local environments to maximize reuse of existing functions and types.
 
-Finally, variables may be overloaded:
+Finally, \CFA allows variable overloading:
 \lstDeleteShortInline@
 \par\smallskip
@@ -262 +262 @@
 forall( otype T | summable( T ) )
   T sum( T a[$\,$], size_t size ) {
-        T total = { 0 };                                                $\C{// instantiate T from 0}$
+        `T` total = { `0` };                                    $\C{// instantiate T from 0}$
         for ( unsigned int i = 0; i < size; i += 1 )
-                total += a[i];                                          $\C{// select appropriate +}$
+                total `+=` a[i];                                        $\C{// select appropriate +}$
         return total;
 }
@@ -301 +301 @@
 \end{lstlisting}
 
-Semantically, traits are simply a named lists of type assertions, but they may be used for many of the same purposes that interfaces in Java or abstract base classes in \CC are used for. Unlike Java interfaces or \CC base classes, \CFA types do not explicitly state any inheritance relationship to traits they satisfy; this can be considered a form of structural inheritance, similar to implementation of an interface in Go, as opposed to the nominal inheritance model of Java and \CC. Nominal inheritance can be simulated with traits using marker variables or functions:
+Traits may be used for many of the same purposes as interfaces in Java or abstract base classes in \CC. Unlike Java interfaces or \CC base classes, \CFA types do not explicitly state any inheritance relationship to traits they satisfy, which is a form of structural inheritance, similar to the implementation of an interface in Go~\citep{Go}, as opposed to the nominal inheritance model of Java and \CC. Nominal inheritance can be simulated with traits using marker variables or functions:
 \begin{lstlisting}
 trait nominal(otype T) {
@@ -318 +318 @@
 struct list {
     int value;
-    list *next;                                                         $\C{// may omit "struct" on type names}$
+    list *next;                                                         $\C{// may omit "struct" on type names as in \CC}$
 };
 
@@ -333 +333 @@
 One of the known shortcomings of standard C is that it does not provide reusable type-safe abstractions for generic data structures and algorithms. Broadly speaking, there are three approaches to create data structures in C. One approach is to write bespoke data structures for each context in which they are needed. While this approach is flexible and supports integration with the C type-checker and tooling, it is also tedious and error-prone, especially for more complex data structures. A second approach is to use @void*@-based polymorphism. This approach is taken by the C standard library functions @qsort@ and @bsearch@, and does allow the use of common code for common functionality. However, basing all polymorphism on @void*@ eliminates the type-checker's ability to ensure that argument types are properly matched, often requires a number of extra function parameters, and also adds pointer indirection and dynamic allocation to algorithms and data structures that would not otherwise require them. A third approach to generic code is to use pre-processor macros to generate it -- this approach does allow the generated code to be both generic and type-checked, though any errors produced may be difficult to interpret. Furthermore, writing and invoking C code as preprocessor macros is unnatural and somewhat inflexible.
 
-Other C-like languages such as \CC and Java use \emph{generic types} to produce type-safe abstract data types. The authors have chosen to implement generic types as well, with some care taken that the generic types design for \CFA integrates efficiently and naturally with the existing polymorphic functions in \CFA while retaining backwards compatibility with C; maintaining separate compilation is a particularly important constraint on the design. However, where the concrete parameters of the generic type are known, there is not extra overhead for the use of a generic type.
+Other C-like languages such as \CC and Java use \emph{generic types} to produce type-safe abstract data types. \CFA implements generic types with some care taken that the generic types design for \CFA integrates efficiently and naturally with the existing polymorphic functions in \CFA while retaining backwards compatibility with C; maintaining separate compilation is a particularly important constraint on the design. However, where the concrete parameters of the generic type are known, there is no extra overhead for the use of a generic type, as for \CC templates.
 
 A generic type can be declared by placing a @forall@ specifier on a @struct@ or @union@ declaration, and instantiated using a parenthesized list of types after the type name:
@@ -358 +358 @@
 \end{lstlisting}
 
-\CFA classifies generic types as either \emph{concrete} or \emph{dynamic}. Dynamic generic types vary in their in-memory layout depending on their type parameters, while concrete generic types have a fixed memory layout regardless of type parameters. A type may have polymorphic parameters but still be concrete; in \CFA such types are called \emph{dtype-static}. Polymorphic pointers are an example of dtype-static types -- @forall(dtype T) T*@ is a polymorphic type, but for any @T@ chosen, @T*@ has exactly the same in-memory representation as a @void*@, and can therefore be represented by a @void*@ in code generation.
-
-\CFA generic types may also specify constraints on their argument type to be checked by the compiler. For example, consider the following declaration of a sorted set type, which ensures that the set key supports comparison and tests for equality:
+\CFA classifies generic types as either \emph{concrete} or \emph{dynamic}. Concrete generic types have a fixed memory layout regardless of type parameters, while dynamic generic types vary in their in-memory layout depending on their type parameters. A type may have polymorphic parameters but still be concrete; in \CFA such types are called \emph{dtype-static}. Polymorphic pointers are an example of dtype-static types -- @forall(dtype T) T*@ is a polymorphic type, but for any @T@ chosen, @T*@ has exactly the same in-memory representation as a @void*@, and can therefore be represented by a @void*@ in code generation.
+
+\CFA generic types may also specify constraints on their argument type to be checked by the compiler. For example, consider the following declaration of a sorted set-type, which ensures that the set key supports equality and relational comparison:
 \begin{lstlisting}
 forall(otype Key | { _Bool ?==?(Key, Key); _Bool ?<?(Key, Key); })
-struct sorted_set;
+  struct sorted_set;
 \end{lstlisting}