2.1 KiB
2.1 KiB
log-e-sappho
experimental type system implementation
sappho grammar
s, t ::= s | t (disjunction, a.k.a. union)
| s & t (conjunction, a.k.a. intersection)
| s => t (implication)
| s -> t (arrow, a.k.a. function)
| forall x . t (forall, polymorphic)
| box t (box, modular logic)
| a [t..] (type operator application)
| x (variable)
| n (nominal)
| true (true, a.k.a. top)
| false (false, a.k.a. bottom)
| { m : t } (member, a.k.a. atomic record)
x ∈ var
n ∈ nominal
a ∈ opname
sappho subtyping rules
s, t, γ ⊢ δ
---- [conj-left]
s & t, γ ⊢ δ
γ ⊢ s, t, δ
---- [disj-right]
γ ⊢ s | t, δ
s, γ ⊢ δ
t, γ ⊢ δ
---- [disj-left]
s | t, γ ⊢ δ
γ ⊢ s, δ
γ ⊢ t, δ
---- [conj-right]
γ ⊢ s & t, δ
// XXX
s => t, s, t, γ ⊢ δ
---- [impl-left]
s => t, s, γ ⊢ δ
// discussion about implication below
s, γ ⊢ t, δ
---- [impl-right]
γ ⊢ s => t, δ
// box works as a kind of "forall" for concrete types
box t, t, γ ⊢ δ
---- [box-left]
box t, γ ⊢ δ
// (.)-- filters the contexts.
γ-- ⊢ t, δ--
---- [box-right]
γ ⊢ box t, δ
context operators
(t, γ)-- =def= t, γ-- if t == box s
γ-- otherwise
What happens when box is buried under type operators, like box s & box t? It could be that the above definition filters out too much of the contexts.
My gut feeling™ makes me think it is just a matter of reordering sequent rules to get keep the things wanted in context, which for an algorithm sucks, but from a declarative standpoint would be okay. This needs some further validation, and of course a reformulation for the actual algorithm.
implication
γ ⊢ s => t, u => s, δ
if s, then u => s holds
if ¬s, then s => t holds
interpretation of ⊢
what is the interpretation of
γ ⊢ δ?
given a concrete type k
conjunction of γ hold for k
then
disjunction of δ hold for k