research-article

Expressing contract monitors as patterns of communication

Authors:

Cameron Swords,

Sam Tobin-HochstadtAuthors Info & Claims

ACM SIGPLAN Notices, Volume 50, Issue 9

Pages 387 - 399

https://doi.org/10.1145/2858949.2784742

Published: 29 August 2015 Publication History

Abstract

We present a new approach to contract semantics which expresses myriad monitoring strategies using a small core of foundational communication primitives. This approach allows multiple existing contract monitoring approaches, ranging from Findler and Felleisen’s original model of higher-order contracts to semi-eager, parallel, or asynchronous monitors, to be expressed in a single language built on well-understood constructs. We prove that this approach accurately simulates the original semantics of higher-order contracts. A straightforward implementation in Racket demonstrates the practicality of our approach which not only enriches existing Racket monitoring strategies, but also support a new style of monitoring in which collections of contracts collaborate to establish a global invariant.

References

[1]

A. Ahmed, R. B. Findler, J. G. Siek, and P. Wadler. Blame for all. In POPL, 2011.

Digital Library

[2]

J. Armstrong, S. Virding, and M. Williams. Erlang Users Guide and Reference Manual. Version 3.2. Ellemtel Utveklings AB, 1991.

[3]

H. C. Baker, Jr. and C. Hewitt. The incremental garbage collection of processes. In SAIPL, 1977.

Digital Library

[4]

M. Blume and D. McAllester. Sound and complete models of contracts. J. Funct. Program., 2006.

Digital Library

[5]

O. Chitil. Practical typed lazy contracts. In ICFP, 2012.

Digital Library

[6]

O. Chitil, D. McNeill, and C. Runciman. Lazy assertions. In IFL, 2003.

Digital Library

[7]

M. Degen, P. Thiemann, and S. Wehr. True lies: Lazy contracts for lazy languages (faithfulness is better than laziness). In ATPS, 2009.

[8]

M. Degen, P. Thiemann, and S. Wehr. Eager and delayed contract monitoring for call-by-value and call-by-name evaluation. J. Log. Algebr. Program., 79(7), 2010.

[9]

C. Dimoulas and M. Felleisen. On contract satisfaction in a higherorder world. TOPLAS, 33(5), Nov. 2011.

Digital Library

[10]

C. Dimoulas, R. Pucella, and M. Felleisen. Future contracts. In PPDP, 2009.

Digital Library

[11]

C. Dimoulas, S. Tobin-Hochstadt, and M. Felleisen. Complete monitoring for behavioral contracts. In ESOP, 2012.

Digital Library

[12]

C. Dimoulas, R. B. Findler, and M. Felleisen. Option contracts. In OOPSLA, 2013.

Digital Library

[13]

T. Disney, C. Flanagan, and J. McCarthy. Temporal higher-order contracts. In ICFP, 2011.

Digital Library

[14]

F. Ergün, S. Kannan, S. R. Kumar, R. Rubinfeld, and M. Viswanathan. Spot-checkers. In STOC, 1998.

Digital Library

[15]

R. B. Findler and M. Blume. Contracts as pairs of projections. In FLOPS, 2006.

Digital Library

[16]

R. B. Findler and M. Felleisen. Contracts for higher-order functions. In ICFP, 2002.

Digital Library

[17]

R. B. Findler, M. Blume, and M. Felleisen. An investigation of contracts as projections. University of Chicago Technical Report TR02-402, 2002.

[18]

R. B. Findler, S.-Y. Guo, and A. Rogers. Lazy contract checking for immutable data structures. In IFL, 2008.

Digital Library

[19]

M. Flatt and PLT. Reference: Racket. Technical Report PLT-TR-2010- 1, PLT Inc., 2010. http://racket-lang.org/tr1/.

[20]

M. Greenberg, B. C. Pierce, and S. Weirich. Contracts made manifest. Journal of Functional Programming, 2012.

Digital Library

[21]

R. H. Halstead, Jr. Implementation of multilisp: Lisp on a multiprocessor. LFP, 1984.

Digital Library

[22]

R. Hinze, J. Jeuring, and A. Löh. Typed contracts for functional programming. In FLOPS, 2006.

Digital Library

[23]

K. Honda, V. T. Vasconcelos, and M. Kubo. Language primitives and type discipline for structured communication-based programming. In ESOP, 1998.

Digital Library

[24]

A. Jeffrey. Semantics for core concurrent ml using computation types. In HOOTS. Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Digital Library

[25]

B. Meyer. Eiffel: the language. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1992. ISBN 0-13- 247925-7.

Digital Library

[26]

R. Milner. Functions as processes. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 2, 6 1992.

[27]

C. Morgan. Programming from specifications. 1990.

Digital Library

[28]

D. L. Parnas. A technique for software module specification with examples. Commun. ACM, 1972.

Digital Library

[29]

J. H. Reppy. Concurrent ML: Design, application and semantics, 1993.

[30]

J. H. Reppy. Concurrent Programming in ML. Cambridge University Press, 1999. ISBN 0521480892.

Digital Library

[31]

D. Sangiorgi and D. Walker. The Pi-Calculus: A Theory of Mobile Processes. Cambridge University Press, 2003.

[32]

T. S. Strickland and M. Felleisen. Contracts for first-class classes. In DLS, Oct. 2010.

Digital Library

[33]

T. S. Strickland, S. Tobin-Hochstadt, R. B. Findler, and M. Flatt. Chaperones and impersonators: run-time support for reasonable interposition. In OOPSLA, 2012.

Digital Library

[34]

K. Takeuchi, K. Honda, and M. Kubo. An interaction-based language and its typing system. In PARLE, 1994.

Digital Library

Cited By

Lazarek LKing ASundar SFindler RDimoulas C(2019)Does blame shifting work?Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/33711334:POPL(1-29)Online publication date: 20-Dec-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3371133
SWORDS CSABRY ATOBIN-HOCHSTADT S(2018)An extended account of contract monitoring strategies as patterns of communicationJournal of Functional Programming10.1017/S095679681800004728Online publication date: 7-Mar-2018
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956796818000047
Melgratti HPadovani L(2017)Chaperone contracts for higher-order sessionsProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/31102791:ICFP(1-29)Online publication date: 29-Aug-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3110279
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Expressing contract monitors as patterns of communication
1. Software and its engineering
  1. Software notations and tools
    1. General programming languages
      1. Language features
2. Theory of computation
  1. Logic
  2. Semantics and reasoning
    1. Program reasoning

Recommendations

Expressing contract monitors as patterns of communication
ICFP 2015: Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming

We present a new approach to contract semantics which expresses myriad monitoring strategies using a small core of foundational communication primitives. This approach allows multiple existing contract monitoring approaches, ranging from Findler and ...
A Behavioral Specification of Imperative Programming Languages*This paper was presented at Session TD3: Computer Systems & Applications (2) 3 of ITC-CSCC 2005.

In this paper, we give a denotational semantics of imperative programming languages as a CafeOBJ behavioral specification. Since CafeOBJ is an executable algebraic specification language, not only execution of programs but also semi-automatic ...
Programming event monitors
Abstract
Specification languages for runtime verification are commonly rooted in formal languages, such as temporal logic, automata, or regular expressions. We argue that, for practical purposes, specification languages for monitoring should allow language ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM SIGPLAN Notices

ACM SIGPLAN Notices Volume 50, Issue 9

ICFP '15

September 2015

436 pages

ISSN:0362-1340

EISSN:1558-1160

DOI:10.1145/2858949

Editor:
Andy Gill
University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS

Issue’s Table of Contents

ICFP 2015: Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming
August 2015
436 pages
ISBN:9781450336697
DOI:10.1145/2784731
General Chair:
Kathleen Fisher
Tufts University, USA
,
Program Chair:
John Reppy
University of Chicago, USA

Copyright © 2015 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 29 August 2015

Published in SIGPLAN Volume 50, Issue 9

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

National Science Foundation

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

5
Total Citations
View Citations
174
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)1
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 09 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Lazarek LKing ASundar SFindler RDimoulas C(2019)Does blame shifting work?Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/33711334:POPL(1-29)Online publication date: 20-Dec-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3371133
SWORDS CSABRY ATOBIN-HOCHSTADT S(2018)An extended account of contract monitoring strategies as patterns of communicationJournal of Functional Programming10.1017/S095679681800004728Online publication date: 7-Mar-2018
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956796818000047
Melgratti HPadovani L(2017)Chaperone contracts for higher-order sessionsProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/31102791:ICFP(1-29)Online publication date: 29-Aug-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3110279
Vitousek MSwords CSiek J(2017)Big types in little runtime: open-world soundness and collaborative blame for gradual type systemsACM SIGPLAN Notices10.1145/3093333.300984952:1(762-774)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3093333.3009849
Vitousek MSwords CSiek JCastagna GGordon A(2017)Big types in little runtime: open-world soundness and collaborative blame for gradual type systemsProceedings of the 44th ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages10.1145/3009837.3009849(762-774)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3009837.3009849

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents