An Institutional Approach to Donor Control: From Dyadic Ties to a Field‐Level Analysis

Literature on the nonprofit sector focuses on charities and their interactions with clients or governmental agencies; donors are studied less often. Studies on philanthropy do examine donors but tend to focus on microlevel factors to explain their behavior. This study, in contrast, draws on institutional theory to show that macrolevel factors affect donor behavior. It also extends the institutional framework by examining the field‐level configurations in which donors and fundraisers are embedded. Employing the case of workplace charity, this new model highlights how the composition of the organizational field structures fundraisers and donors alike, shaping fundraisers’ strategies of solicitation and, therefore, the extent of donor control.

Some Considerations on a Calculus with Weak References

Weak references are references that do not prevent the object they point to from being garbage collected. Most realistic languages, including Java, SML/NJ, and OCaml to name a few, have some facility for programming with weak references. Weak references are used in implementing idioms like memoizing functions and hash-consing in order to avoid potential memory leaks. However, the semantics of weak references in many languages are not clearly specified. Without a formal semantics for weak references it becomes impossible to prove the correctness of implementations making use of this feature. Previous work by Hallett and Kfoury extends λgc, a language for modeling garbage collection, to λweak, a similar language with weak references. Using this previously formalized semantics for weak references, we consider two issues related to well-behavedness of programs. Firstly, we provide a new, simpler proof of the well-behavedness of the syntactically restricted fragment of λweak defined previously. Secondly, we give a natural semantic criterion for well-behavedness much broader than the syntactic restriction, which is useful as principle for programming with weak references. Furthermore we extend the result, proved in previously of λgc, which allows one to use type-inference to collect some reachable objects that are never used. We prove that this result holds of our language, and we extend this result to allow the collection of weakly-referenced reachable garbage without incurring the computational overhead sometimes associated with collecting weak bindings (e.g. the need to recompute a memoized function). Lastly we use extend the semantic framework to model the key/value weak references found in Haskell and we prove the Haskell is semantics equivalent to a simpler semantics due to the lack of side-effects in our language.

A Formal Semantics for Weak References

A weak reference is a reference to an object that is not followed by the pointer tracer when garbage collection is called. That is, a weak reference cannot prevent the object it references from being garbage collected. Weak references remain a troublesome programming feature largely because there is not an accepted, precise semantics that describes their behavior (in fact, we are not aware of any formalization of their semantics). The trouble is that weak references allow reachable objects to be garbage collected, therefore allowing garbage collection to influence the result of a program. Despite this difficulty, weak references continue to be used in practice for reasons related to efficient storage management, and are included in many popular programming languages (Standard ML, Haskell, OCaml, and Java). We give a formal semantics for a calculus called λweak that includes weak references and is derived from Morrisett, Felleisen, and Harper’s λgc. λgc formalizes the notion of garbage collection by means of a rewrite rule. Such a formalization is required to precisely characterize the semantics of weak references. However, the inclusion of a garbage-collection rewrite-rule in a language with weak references introduces non-deterministic evaluation, even if the parameter-passing mechanism is deterministic (call-by-value in our case). This raises the question of confluence for our rewrite system. We discuss natural restrictions under which our rewrite system is confluent, thus guaranteeing uniqueness of program result. We define conditions that allow other garbage collection algorithms to co-exist with our semantics of weak references. We also introduce a polymorphic type system to prove the absence of erroneous program behavior (i.e., the absence of “stuck evaluation”) and a corresponding type inference algorithm. We prove the type system sound and the inference algorithm sound and complete.

Towards Formalizing Java's Weak References

Weak references provide the programmer with limited control over the process of memory management. By using them, a programmer can make decisions based on previous actions that are taken by the garbage collector. Although this is often helpful, the outcome of a program using weak references is less predictable due to the nondeterminism they introduce in program evaluation. It is therefore desirable to have a framework of formal tools to reason about weak references and programs that use them. We present several calculi that formalize various aspects of weak references, inspired by their implementation in Java. We provide a calculus to model multiple levels of non-strong references, where a different garbage collection policy is applied to each level. We consider different collection policies such as eager collection and lazy collection. Similar to the way they are implemented in Java, we give the semantics of eager collection to weak references and the semantics of lazy collection to soft references. Moreover, we condition garbage collection on the availability of time and space resources. While time constraints are used in order to restrict garbage collection, space constraints are used in order to trigger it. Finalizers are a problematic feature in Java, especially when they interact with weak references. We provide a calculus to model finalizer evaluation. Since finalizers have little meaning in a language without side-effect, we introduce a limited form of side effect into the calculus. We discuss determinism and the separate notion of uniqueness of (evaluation) outcome. We show that in our calculus, finalizer evaluation does not affect uniqueness of outcome.