Computational Properties of SNAFU

Sensor applications in Sensoria [1] are expressed using STEP (Sensorium Task Execution Plan). SNAFU (Sensor-Net Applications as Functional Units) serves as a high-level sensor-programming language, which is compiled into STEP. In SNAFU’s current form, its differences with STEP are relatively minor, as they are limited to shorthands and macros not available in STEP. We show that, however restrictive it may seem, SNAFU has in fact universal power; technically, it is a Turing-complete language, i.e., any Turing program can be written in SNAFU (though not always conveniently). Although STEP may be allowed to have universal power, as a low-level language not directly available to Sensorium users, SNAFU programmers may use this power for malicious purposes or inadvertently introduce errors with destructive consequences. In future developments of SNAFU, we plan to introduce restrictions and highlevel features with safety guards, such as those provided by a type system, which will make SNAFU programming safer.

Safe Compositional Specification of Network Systems With Polymorphic, Constrained Types

In the framework of iBench research project, our previous work created a domain specific language TRAFFIC [6] that facilitates specification, programming, and maintenance of distributed applications over a network. It allows safety property to be formalized in terms of types and subtyping relations. Extending upon our previous work, we add Hindley-Milner style polymorphism [8] with constraints [9] to the type system of TRAFFIC. This allows a programmer to use for-all quantifier to describe types of network components, escalating power and expressiveness of types to a new level that was not possible before with propositional subtyping relations. Furthermore, we design our type system with a pluggable constraint system, so it can adapt to different application needs while maintaining soundness. In this paper, we show the soundness of the type system, which is not syntax-directed but is easier to do typing derivation. We show that there is an equivalent syntax-directed type system, which is what a type checker program would implement to verify the safety of a network flow. This is followed by discussion on several constraint systems: polymorphism with subtyping constraints, Linear Programming, and Constraint Handling Rules (CHR) [3]. Finally, we provide some examples to illustrate workings of these constraint systems.

Typability and Type Checking in the Second-Order Λ-Calculus Are Equivalent and Undecidable (Preliminary Draft)

We consider the problems of typability[1] and type checking[2] in the Girard/Reynolds second-order polymorphic typed λ-calculus, for which we use the short name "System F" and which we use in the "Curry style" where types are assigned to pure λ -terms. These problems have been considered and proven to be decidable or undecidable for various restrictions and extensions of System F and other related systems, and lower-bound complexity results for System F have been achieved, but they have remained "embarrassing open problems"[3] for System F itself. We first prove that type checking in System F is undecidable by a reduction from semi-unification. We then prove typability in System F is undecidable by a reduction from type checking. Since the reverse reduction is already known, this implies the two problems are equivalent. The second reduction uses a novel method of constructing λ-terms such that in all type derivations, specific bound variables must always be assigned a specific type. Using this technique, we can require that specific subterms must be typable using a specific, fixed type assignment in order for the entire term to be typable at all. Any desired type assignment may be simulated. We develop this method, which we call "constants for free", for both the λK and λI calculi.

Type Inference For Recursive Definitions

We consider type systems that combine universal types, recursive types, and object types. We study type inference in these systems under a rank restriction, following Leivant's notion of rank. To motivate our work, we present several examples showing how our systems can be used to type programs encountered in practice. We show that type inference in the rank-k system is decidable for k ≤ 2 and undecidable for k ≥ 3. (Similar results based on different techniques are known to hold for System F, without recursive types and object types.) Our undecidability result is obtained by a reduction from a particular adaptation (which we call "regular") of the semi-unification problem and whose undecidability is, interestingly, obtained by methods totally different from those used in the case of standard (or finite) semi-unification.