[Supporting material] On the expressive power of user-defined effects: Effect handlers, monadic reflection, delimited control
Text source-files for the mechanised proofs supporting the paper, formalised in Abella We compare the expressive power of three programming abstractions for user-defined computational effects: Bauer and Pretnar's effect handlers, Filinski's monadic reflection, and delimited control...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Dataset |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
University of Oxford
2017
|
| _version_ | 1797063480388354048 |
|---|---|
| author | Pretnar, M |
| author2 | Pretnar, M |
| author_facet | Pretnar, M Pretnar, M |
| author_sort | Pretnar, M |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | Text source-files for the mechanised proofs supporting the paper, formalised in Abella We compare the expressive power of three programming abstractions for user-defined computational effects: Bauer and Pretnar's effect handlers, Filinski's monadic reflection, and delimited control without answer-type-modification. This comparison allows a precise discussion about the relative expressiveness of each programming abstraction. It also demonstrates the sensitivity of the relative expressiveness of user-defined effects to seemingly orthogonal language features.<br/><br/> We present three calculi, one per abstraction, extending Levy's call-by-push-value. For each calculus, we present syntax, operational semantics, a natural type-and-effect system, and, for effect handlers and monadic reflection, a set-theoretic denotational semantics. We establish their basic metatheoretic properties: safety, termination, and, where applicable, soundness and adequacy. Using Felleisen's notion of a macro translation, we show that these abstractions can macro-express each other, and show which translations preserve typeability. We use the adequate finitary set-theoretic denotational semantics for the monadic calculus to show that effect handlers cannot be macro-expressed while preserving typeability either by monadic reflection or by delimited control. Our argument fails with simple changes to the type system such as polymorphism and inductive types. We supplement our development with a mechanised Abella formalisation. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T21:00:28Z |
| format | Dataset |
| id | oxford-uuid:3ab5c393-dee7-41d7-a2f0-576bd52391a7 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T21:00:28Z |
| publishDate | 2017 |
| publisher | University of Oxford |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:3ab5c393-dee7-41d7-a2f0-576bd52391a72022-03-26T14:03:14Z[Supporting material] On the expressive power of user-defined effects: Effect handlers, monadic reflection, delimited controlDatasethttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_ddb1uuid:3ab5c393-dee7-41d7-a2f0-576bd52391a7EnglishORA DepositUniversity of Oxford2017Pretnar, MPretnar, MPretnar, MText source-files for the mechanised proofs supporting the paper, formalised in Abella We compare the expressive power of three programming abstractions for user-defined computational effects: Bauer and Pretnar's effect handlers, Filinski's monadic reflection, and delimited control without answer-type-modification. This comparison allows a precise discussion about the relative expressiveness of each programming abstraction. It also demonstrates the sensitivity of the relative expressiveness of user-defined effects to seemingly orthogonal language features.<br/><br/> We present three calculi, one per abstraction, extending Levy's call-by-push-value. For each calculus, we present syntax, operational semantics, a natural type-and-effect system, and, for effect handlers and monadic reflection, a set-theoretic denotational semantics. We establish their basic metatheoretic properties: safety, termination, and, where applicable, soundness and adequacy. Using Felleisen's notion of a macro translation, we show that these abstractions can macro-express each other, and show which translations preserve typeability. We use the adequate finitary set-theoretic denotational semantics for the monadic calculus to show that effect handlers cannot be macro-expressed while preserving typeability either by monadic reflection or by delimited control. Our argument fails with simple changes to the type system such as polymorphism and inductive types. We supplement our development with a mechanised Abella formalisation. |
| spellingShingle | Pretnar, M [Supporting material] On the expressive power of user-defined effects: Effect handlers, monadic reflection, delimited control |
| title | [Supporting material] On the expressive power of user-defined effects: Effect handlers, monadic reflection, delimited control |
| title_full | [Supporting material] On the expressive power of user-defined effects: Effect handlers, monadic reflection, delimited control |
| title_fullStr | [Supporting material] On the expressive power of user-defined effects: Effect handlers, monadic reflection, delimited control |
| title_full_unstemmed | [Supporting material] On the expressive power of user-defined effects: Effect handlers, monadic reflection, delimited control |
| title_short | [Supporting material] On the expressive power of user-defined effects: Effect handlers, monadic reflection, delimited control |
| title_sort | supporting material on the expressive power of user defined effects effect handlers monadic reflection delimited control |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT pretnarm supportingmaterialontheexpressivepowerofuserdefinedeffectseffecthandlersmonadicreflectiondelimitedcontrol |