The case for compositional type checking

23 October 2010 (programming haskell language ELTE) (1 comment)

This is an based on a chapter of the M.Sc. thesis I am writing at ELTE, supervised by Péter Diviánszky.

For my M.Sc. thesis, I've been working on writing a compositional type checker for Haskell 98. The basic idea is to extend Olaf Chitil's compositional type system with ad-hoc polymorphism, Haskell 98's major extension to the Hindley-Milner type system. In this post, I'm showing the motivation behind wanting to go compositional.

A property shared by both commonly-used algorithms for doing Hindley-Milner type inference, W and M, is that both W and M infer the type of composite expressions by inferring one subexpression (in some sense, the “first” one) and using its results in inferring the type of the “next” one. They are linear in the sense that partial results are threaded throughout the type inference.

The effect of linearity on type inference is that certain sub-expressions (those that are processed earlier) can have greater influence on the typing of other subexpressions. This is bad because it imposes a hierarchy on the subexpressions that is determined solely by the actual type checking algorithm, not by the type system; thus, it can lead to misleading error messages for the programmer.

For example, let's take the following definition of a Haskell function:

There are two ways to typecheck this definition using W: either we first typecheck toUpper x, using the context {x :: α}, resulting in the type equation α ~ Char, then checking not x with {x :: Char}, or do it the other way around, by first looking at not x, then as a result recursing into toUpper x with the context {x :: Bool}.

GHC, it seems, does the former, resulting in the following error message:

Whereas Hugs 98 does the latter:

The problem is that they are both misleading, because there is nothing wrong with either not x or toUpper x by itself. The problem only comes from trying to unify their respective views on the type of x.

A compositional type checker, in contrast, descends into toUpper x and not x using the same context, {x :: α}. The first one results in the typing (which is defined to be not just the type of an expression, but also a mapping of monomorphic variables to their types) {x :: Char} ⊢ Char, and the second one in {x :: Bool} ⊢ Bool. Only afterwards are these two typings tried to be unified.

This is better because it becomes meaningful to talk about the typing of a subexpression. For the example above, my work-in-progress compositional type checker can report errors with an (IMO) much more helpful message:

Of course, the devil's in the details — but that's what my thesis will be about.