Context Navigation

-                      r8f55e8e9
+                      rcf01d0b
 Due to this complexity, the expression-resolution pass in \CFACC{} requires 95\% of compiler runtime on some source files, making an efficient procedure for expression resolution a requirement for a performant \CFA{} compiler.
 The selection of features presented in this chapter are chosen to elucidate the design constraints of the work presented in this thesis.
+The features presented in this chapter are chosen to elucidate the design constraints of the work presented in this thesis.
 In some cases the interactions of multiple features make this design a significantly more complex problem than any individual feature; in other cases a feature that does not by itself add any complexity to expression resolution triggers previously rare edge cases more frequently.
 …
 The addition of !one_t! allows generic algorithms to handle the unit value uniformly for types where it is meaningful; a simple example of this is that polymorphic functions\footnote{discussed in Section~\ref{poly-func-sec}} in the \CFA{} prelude define !++x! and !x++! in terms of !x += 1!, allowing users to idiomatically define all forms of increment for a type !T! by defining the single function !T& ?+=?(T&, one_t)!; analogous overloads for the decrement operators are also present, and programmers can override any of these functions for a particular type if desired.
 \CFA{} previously allowed !0! and !1! to be the names of polymorphic variables, with separate overloads for !int 0!, !int 1!, and !forall(dtype T) T* 0!.
+\CFA{} previously allowed !0! and !1! to be the names of polymorphic variables, with separate overloads for !int 0!, !int 1!, and the polymorphic variable !forall(dtype T) T* 0!.
 While designing \CFA{} generic types (see Chapter~\ref{generic-chap}), it was discovered that the parametric polymorphic zero variable is not generalizable to other types; though all null pointers have the same in-memory representation, the same cannot be said of the zero values of arbitrary types.
 As such, variables that could represent !0! and !1! were phased out in favour of functions that could generate those values for a given type as appropriate.
+As such, polymorphic variables, and in particular variables for !0! and !1!, were phased out in favour of functions that could generate those values for a given type as appropriate.
 \section{Polymorphic Functions} \label{poly-func-sec}
 …
 To avoid such infinite loops, \CFACC{} imposes a fixed limit on the possible depth of recursion, similar to that employed by most \CC{} compilers for template expansion; this restriction means that there are some otherwise semantically well-typed expressions that cannot be resolved by \CFACC{}.
-% \subsection{Deleted Declarations}
-% Particular type combinations can be exempted from matching a given polymorphic function through use of a \emph{deleted function declaration}:
-% \begin{cfa}
-% int somefn(char) = void;
-% \end{cfa}
-% This feature is based on a \CCeleven{} feature typically used to make a type non-copyable by deleting its copy constructor and assignment operator\footnote{In previous versions of \CC{}, a type could be made non-copyable by declaring a private copy constructor and assignment operator, but not defining either. This idiom is well-known, but depends on some rather subtle and \CC{}-specific rules about private members and implicitly-generated functions; the deleted function form is both clearer and less verbose.} or forbidding some interpretations of a polymorphic function by specifically deleting the forbidden overloads\footnote{Specific polymorphic function overloads can also be forbidden in previous \CC{} versions through use of template metaprogramming techniques, though this advanced usage is beyond the skills of many programmers. A similar effect can be produced on an ad-hoc basis at the appropriate call sites through use of casts to determine the function type. In both cases, the deleted-function form is clearer and more concise.}.
-% Deleted function declarations are implemented in \CFACC{} by adding them to the symbol table as usual, but with a flag set that indicates that the function is deleted.
-% If this deleted declaration is selected as the unique minimal-cost interpretation of an expression than an error is produced.
 \subsection{Traits}
 …
 Traits, however, are significantly more powerful than nominal-inheritance interfaces; firstly, due to the scoping rules of the declarations that satisfy a trait's type assertions, a type may not satisfy a trait everywhere that that type is declared, as with !char! and the !nominal! trait above.
+Secondly, because \CFA{} is not object-oriented and types do not have a closed set of methods, existing C library types can be extended to implement a trait simply by writing the requisite functions\footnote{\CC{} only allows partial extension of C types, because constructors, destructors, conversions, and the assignment, indexing, and function-call operators may only be defined in a class; \CFA{} does not have any of these restrictions.}.
+Finally, traits may be used to declare a relationship among multiple types, a property that may be difficult or impossible to represent in nominal-inheritance type systems\footnote{This example uses \CFA{}'s reference types, described in Section~\ref{type-features-sec}.}:
+Secondly, because \CFA{} is not object-oriented and types do not have a closed set of methods, existing C library types can be extended to implement a trait simply by writing the requisite functions\footnote{\CC{} only allows partial extension of C types, because constructors, destructors, conversions, and the assignment, indexing, and function-call operators may only be defined in a class; \CFA{} does not have any of these restrictions.}. Finally, traits may be used to declare a relationship among multiple types, a property that may be difficult or impossible to represent in nominal-inheritance type systems\footnote{This example uses \CFA{}'s reference types, described in Section~\ref{type-features-sec}.}:
 \begin{cfa}
 …
 In this example above, !(list_iterator, int)! satisfies !pointer_like! by the user-defined dereference function, and !(list_iterator, list)! also satisfies !pointer_like! by the built-in dereference operator for pointers.
 Given a declaration !list_iterator it!, !*it! can be either an !int! or a !list!, with the meaning disambiguated by context (\eg{} !int x = *it;! interprets !*it! as !int!, while !(*it).value = 42;! interprets !*it! as !list!).
+While a nominal-inheritance system with associated types could model one of those two relationships by making !El! an associated type of !Ptr! in the !pointer_like! implementation, few such systems could model both relationships simultaneously.
+While a nominal-inheritance system with associated types could model one of those two relationships by making !El! an associated type of !Ptr! in the !pointer_like! implementation, the author is unaware of any nominal-inheritance system that could model both relationships simultaneously.
+Further comparison of \CFA{} polymorphism with other languages can be found in Section~\ref{generic-related-sec}.
 The flexibility of \CFA{}'s implicit trait-satisfaction mechanism provides programmers with a great deal of power, but also blocks some optimization approaches for expression resolution.
+The ability of types to begin or cease to satisfy traits when declarations go into or out of scope makes caching of trait satisfaction judgments difficult, and the ability of traits to take multiple type parameters can lead to a combinatorial explosion of work in any attempt to pre-compute trait satisfaction relationships.
+The ability of types to begin or cease to satisfy traits when declarations go into or out of scope makes caching of trait satisfaction judgments difficult, and the ability of traits to take multiple type parameters can lead to a combinatorial explosion of work in any attempt to pre-compute trait satisfaction relationships.
+\subsection{Deleted Declarations}
+Particular type combinations can be exempted from matching a given polymorphic function through use of a \emph{deleted function declaration}:
+\begin{cfa}
+int somefn(char) = void;
+\end{cfa}
+This feature is based on a \CCeleven{} feature typically used to make a type non-copyable by deleting its copy constructor and assignment operator\footnote{In previous versions of \CC{}, a type could be made non-copyable by declaring a private copy constructor and assignment operator, but not defining either. This idiom is well-known, but depends on some rather subtle and \CC{}-specific rules about private members and implicitly-generated functions; the deleted function form is both clearer and less verbose.} or forbidding some interpretations of a polymorphic function by specifically deleting the forbidden overloads\footnote{Specific polymorphic function overloads can also be forbidden in previous \CC{} versions through use of template metaprogramming techniques, though this advanced usage is beyond the skills of many programmers.}.
+Deleted function declarations are implemented in \CFACC{} by adding them to the symbol table as usual, but with a flag set that indicates that the function is deleted.
+If this deleted declaration is selected as the unique minimal-cost interpretation of an expression then an error is produced, allowing \CFA{} programmers to guide the expression resolver away from undesirable solutions.
 \section{Implicit Conversions} \label{implicit-conv-sec}
 …
 The C standard makes heavy use of the concept of \emph{lvalue}, an expression with a memory address; its complement, \emph{rvalue} (a non-addressable expression) is not explicitly named in the standard.
 In \CFA{}, the distinction between lvalue and rvalue can be re-framed in terms of reference and non-reference types, with the benefit of being able to express the difference in user code.
 \CFA{} references preserve the existing qualifier-dropping implicit lvalue-to-rvalue conversion from C (\eg{} a !const volatile int&! can be implicitly copied to a bare !int!)
+\CFA{} references preserve the existing qualifier-dropping implicit lvalue-to-rvalue conversion from C (\eg{} a !const volatile int&! can be implicitly copied to a bare !int!).
 To make reference types more easily usable in legacy pass-by-value code, \CFA{} also adds an implicit rvalue-to-lvalue conversion, implemented by storing the value in a compiler-generated temporary variable and passing a reference to that temporary.
 To mitigate the ``!const! hell'' problem present in \CC{}, there is also a qualifier-dropping lvalue-to-lvalue conversion implemented by copying into a temporary:
 …
 \begin{cfa}
 const int magic = 42;
 void inc_print( int& x ) { printf("%d\n", ++x); }
 print_inc( magic ); $\C{// legal; implicitly generated code in red below:}$
+inc_print( magic ); $\C{// legal; implicitly generated code in red below:}$
 `int tmp = magic;` $\C{// to safely strip const-qualifier}$
 `print_inc( tmp );` $\C{// tmp is incremented, magic is unchanged}$
+`inc_print( tmp );` $\C{// tmp is incremented, magic is unchanged}$
 \end{cfa}
 …
 \CFA{} supports all of these use cases without further added syntax.
 The key to this syntax-free feature support is an observation made by the author that the address of a reference is a lvalue.
 In C, the address-of operator !&x! can only be applied to lvalue expressions, and always produces an immutable rvalue; \CFA{} supports reference re-binding by assignment to the address of a reference, and pointers to references by repeating the address-of operator:
+In C, the address-of operator !&x! can only be applied to lvalue expressions, and always produces an immutable rvalue; \CFA{} supports reference re-binding by assignment to the address of a reference\footnote{The syntactic difference between reference initialization and reference assignment is unfortunate, but preserves the ability to pass function arguments by reference (a reference initialization context) without added syntax.}, and pointers to references by repeating the address-of operator:
 \begin{cfa}
 …
 \end{cfa}
 For better compatibility with C, the \CFA{} team has chosen not to differentiate function overloads based on top-level reference types, and as such their contribution to the difficulty of \CFA{} expression resolution is largely restricted to the implementation details of normalization conversions and adapters.
+For better compatibility with C, the \CFA{} team has chosen not to differentiate function overloads based on top-level reference types, and as such their contribution to the difficulty of \CFA{} expression resolution is largely restricted to the implementation details of matching reference to non-reference types during type-checking.
 \subsection{Resource Management} \label{ctor-sec}

Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.

Context Navigation

Changeset cf01d0b for doc/theses/aaron_moss_PhD/phd/background.tex

Legend:

doc/theses/aaron_moss_PhD/phd/background.tex

Download in other formats: