Discussion:
[isabelle] Opaque ascription for SML code generation
(too old to reply)
Jørgen Villadsen
2016-06-10 18:28:52 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

Is there a way to make the SML code generator use opaque ascription "structure Foo :> FOO = struct ... end" rather than transparent ascription "structure Foo : FOO = struct ... end"?

OCaml does not have transparent ascription so perhaps the default for SML should be opaque ascription.

Thanks,

Jørgen
David Matthews
2016-06-13 11:44:01 UTC
Permalink
Pretty-printing isn't part of the ML standard so it's not always clear
how to do it properly. There have been various changes over the years.
In particular, printing exception packets is difficult because the
packet can contain values of types that exist only where the exception
is raised. In the example below, "t" may not actually be exported from
the signature. So, Poly/ML puts the print function that applies where
the exception is raised into the exception packet and uses that if it
needs to print the packet. There are no plans to change this.

There have been some changes around the printing of types exported
through opaque matching. When a structure matches a signature
containing a type through opaque matching the semantics says that this
creates a new type "name". Poly/ML creates a new ref to hold the pretty
print function for the new type. Previously this was initialised to the
pretty print function for the implementing type but this was changed in
5.6.1 to default to printing "?". It later became clear that this was
too restrictive when the signature contained a datatype (e.g. "test"
below) so there was a further change in commit 29985b1c in git master.
So now if you install pretty printers both within the structure, (*1*)
below, for the exception, and outside the signature (*2*) it will work
as you expect.

David
After the Isabelle2016 release, we have discontinued SML/NJ and old
versions of Poly/ML, so there is a bit more flexibility now in canonical
patterns for Isabelle/ML.
The example with structure A3 from above is the difficult one, notably
the situation "does not work (overrides pp for int)". Defining the pp
outside of the structure basically works, but exceptions are not printed
correctly. This is how the problem with opaque ascription was discovered
many years ago, and the abstype solution took over.
Here is an update of the example A3 from Stackoverflow above, using
ML ‹
structure A :>
sig
type t
exception BAD of t
datatype test = Test of t
val a: t
val print: t -> string
end =
struct
type t = int
exception BAD of t
datatype test = Test of t
val a = 42
fun print i = "{" ^ Int.toString i ^ "}"
(*1*)
(*val _ = PolyML.addPrettyPrinter (fn _ => fn _ => fn x =>
PolyML.PrettyString (print x))*)
end;
(*2*)
(*val _ = PolyML.addPrettyPrinter (fn _ => fn _ => fn x =>
PolyML.PrettyString (A.print x))*)

ML ‹A.a; A.Test A.a; A.BAD A.a›
This leads to a mix of results, depending on the place where the pretty
printer is installed.
I still don't see how to get a simple and robust pretty printer setup,
so we can't use opaque ascription – unless David Matthews wants to
refine that again for a future release of Poly/ML.
Makarius
Jørgen Villadsen
2016-06-14 17:01:32 UTC
Permalink
Thanks to Florian, Makarius and David for the explanations.

Jørgen

-----Original Message-----
From: cl-isabelle-users-***@lists.cam.ac.uk [mailto:cl-isabelle-users-***@lists.cam.ac.uk] On Behalf Of David Matthews
Sent: 13. juni 2016 13:36
To: Makarius; cl-isabelle-***@lists.cam.ac.uk
Cc: PolyML mailing list
Subject: Re: [isabelle] Opaque ascription for SML code generation

Pretty-printing isn't part of the ML standard so it's not always clear how to do it properly. There have been various changes over the years.
In particular, printing exception packets is difficult because the packet can contain values of types that exist only where the exception is raised. In the example below, "t" may not actually be exported from the signature. So, Poly/ML puts the print function that applies where the exception is raised into the exception packet and uses that if it needs to print the packet. There are no plans to change this.

There have been some changes around the printing of types exported through opaque matching. When a structure matches a signature containing a type through opaque matching the semantics says that this creates a new type "name". Poly/ML creates a new ref to hold the pretty print function for the new type. Previously this was initialised to the pretty print function for the implementing type but this was changed in
5.6.1 to default to printing "?". It later became clear that this was too restrictive when the signature contained a datatype (e.g. "test"
below) so there was a further change in commit 29985b1c in git master.
So now if you install pretty printers both within the structure, (*1*) below, for the exception, and outside the signature (*2*) it will work as you expect.

David
After the Isabelle2016 release, we have discontinued SML/NJ and old
versions of Poly/ML, so there is a bit more flexibility now in
canonical patterns for Isabelle/ML.
The example with structure A3 from above is the difficult one, notably
the situation "does not work (overrides pp for int)". Defining the pp
outside of the structure basically works, but exceptions are not
printed correctly. This is how the problem with opaque ascription was
discovered many years ago, and the abstype solution took over.
Here is an update of the example A3 from Stackoverflow above, using
ML <
structure A :>
sig
type t
exception BAD of t
datatype test = Test of t
val a: t
val print: t -> string
end =
struct
type t = int
exception BAD of t
datatype test = Test of t
val a = 42
fun print i = "{" ^ Int.toString i ^ "}"
(*1*)
(*val _ = PolyML.addPrettyPrinter (fn _ => fn _ => fn x =>
PolyML.PrettyString (print x))*) end;
(*2*)
(*val _ = PolyML.addPrettyPrinter (fn _ => fn _ => fn x =>
PolyML.PrettyString (A.print x))*) >
ML <A.a; A.Test A.a; A.BAD A.a>
This leads to a mix of results, depending on the place where the
pretty printer is installed.
I still don't see how to get a simple and robust pretty printer setup,
so we can't use opaque ascription - unless David Matthews wants to
refine that again for a future release of Poly/ML.
Makarius
Loading...