Rebase

Author: eernstg

specification/dartLangSpec.tex

@@ -23056,12 +23056,13 @@ \subsubsection{The Canonical Syntax of Types}
 \rationale{%
 This shows that concrete syntax behaves in such a manner that it is
 unsafe to consider two types as the same type,
-based on the fact that they are denoted by the same syntax.
+based on the fact that they are denoted by the same syntax,
+even during the static analysis of a single expression.
 
 Similarly, it is incorrect to consider two terms derived from \synt{type}
-as different types based on the fact that they are syntactically different,
-as they could in fact be the same type,
-e.g., imported with different import prefixes.%
+as different types based on the fact that they are syntactically different.
+They could in fact be the same type,
+e.g., imported with different import prefixes.
 
 Consequently, we introduce the notion of the canonical syntax for a type,
 which has the property that each type has a unique syntactic form.
@@ -23077,49 +23078,63 @@ \subsubsection{The Canonical Syntax of Types}
 of the types in a given library $L_1$
 and all libraries \List{L}{2}{n} reachable from $L_1$ via
 one or more import links,
-first choose a set of distinct fresh identifiers
+first choose a set of distinct, globally fresh identifiers
 \List{\metavar{prefix}}{1}{n}.
-Then transform each library $L_i$, $i \in 1 .. n$,
-such that $L_i$ imports itself with the prefix $\metavar{prefix}_i$,
-and $L_i$ imports \code{dart:core} explicitly
-with the suitable prefix $\metavar{prefix}_j$ for some $j$,
-and change all existing imports to use the prefix
-corresponding to the library which is being imported.
+Then transform each library $L_i$, $i \in 1 .. n$ as follows:
 
-\LMHash{}%
-Next, transform every identifier expression and every \synt{typeName}
-that refers to an imported declaration or a library declaration
-such that it uses the prefix $\metavar{prefix}_j$ with the relevant $j$,
-and such that every name resolves to the same declaration
-as it did in the original program.
+\begin{enumerate}
+\item
+  Add a set of import directives to $L_i$ that imports
+  each of the libraries \List{L}{1}{n} with
+  the corresponding prefix $\metavar{prefix}_j$, $j \in 1 .. n$.
+
+  \commentary{%
+    This means that every library in the set
+    $\{\,\List{L}{1}{n}\,\}$
+    imports every other library in that set,
+    even itself and system libraries like \code{dart:core}.%
+  }
+\item
+  Let \id{} be a non-private identifier that resolves to
+  a library declaration in the library $L_j$ in the original program;
+  \id{} is transformed to \code{$\metavar{prefix}_j$.\id}.
+  Let \code{$p$.\id} be a qualified identifier where $p$ is
+  an import prefix in the original program,
+  \id{} is a non-private identifier,
+  and \code{$p$.\id} resolves to
+  a library declaration in the library $L_j$ in the original program;
+  \code{$p$.\id} is transformed to \code{$\metavar{prefix}_j$.\id}.
+\item
+  %% TODO(eernst): We should rename private names to fresh public names.
+  Replace every type that denotes a type alias
+  by its transitive alias expansion
+  (\ref{typedef}).
+  \commentary{%
+    Note that the bodies of type alias declarations
+    already use the new prefixes,
+    so the results of the alias expansion will also use
+    the new prefixes consistently.%
+  }
+\end{enumerate}
 
 \commentary{%
 Note that this transformation does not change any occurrence of \VOID;
-\VOID{} is a reserved word
-and \code{$\metavar{prefix}_j$.\VOID} is a syntax error.%
-}
+\VOID{} is a reserved word, not an identifier.
+Also, \code{$\metavar{prefix}_j$.\VOID} would be a syntax error.
 
-%% TODO(eernst), for review: Rename private names to fresh public names?
-%% Otherwise the type alias could turn into a term containing private names
-%% from different libraries.
-\LMHash{}%
-Finally, replace every type that denotes a type alias
-by its transitive alias expansion
-(\ref{typedef}).
-\commentary{%
-Note that the bodies of type alias declarations already use the new prefixes,
-so the results of the alias expansion will also use
-the new prefixes consistently.%
+The transformation also does not change identifiers denoting type variables,
+There is no need to change those identifiers, because
+no occurrence of such an identifier resolves to a declaration in a
+different library.%
+%% TODO(eernst): Sort out the treatment of private identifiers, too.
 }
 
 \LMHash{}%
-Every \synt{type} and type literal in the resulting program
-is now expressed in a globally unique syntactic form.
-
-\rationale{%
-This means that two terms denoting a type will have the same syntactic form
-if and only if they denote the same type.
-}
+Every \synt{type} and type literal in the resulting set of libraries
+is now expressed in a globally unique syntactic form,
+which is the form that we call the
+\IndexCustom{canonical syntax of}{type!canonical syntax of}
+said types.
 
 \LMHash{}%
 When we say that two types $T_1$ and $T_2$ have the
@@ -23129,6 +23144,36 @@ \subsubsection{The Canonical Syntax of Types}
 have been transformed as described above,
 and the resulting canonical syntaxes are identical.
 
+\rationale{%
+The transformation described here would not be useful in practice
+(or even possible---we can't edit \code{dart:core}).
+It only serves to show that we can express types using a syntactic form
+which is independent of the location.
+This is in turn needed in order to ensure that operations are well-defined
+even when they bring syntactic elements from different locations together,
+such as computations of subtype relationships,
+and construction of standard upper or lower bounds.
+
+We could just as well have replaced the concrete syntax by a semantic
+notion of types,
+where each entity that denotes a type would be, in some sense,
+a reference to a specific declaration
+(this is likely to be the approach used by tool implementations).
+However, that approach would be somewhat inconvenient in a specification,
+because we would need to re-build all the structures that the
+syntax offers.
+For instance, we would need to support the construction of
+a semantic type entity for \code{Map<int, String>},
+based on the semantic type entity for \code{int}, \code{String}, and \code{Map},
+and we would need to support deconstruction of those entities
+in order to prove things like \SubtypeNE{Never}{\code{Map<int, String>}}.
+This would give rise to a lot of mechanism that will simply duplicate
+the structure of the syntax.
+So we prefer to show that the syntax \emph{can} be location independent,
+and that's sufficient to make syntax usable as our representation of
+static semantic types.%
+}
+
 
 \subsubsection{Standard Upper Bounds and Standard Lower Bounds}
 \LMLabel{standardUpperBoundsAndStandardLowerBounds}
@@ -25851,7 +25896,7 @@ \section*{Appendix: Algorithmic Subtyping}
 \item
   \textbf{Reflexivity:}
   if $T_0$ and $T_1$ are the same type then \SubtypeNE{T_0}{T_1}
-  
+
   \commentary{%
     Note that this check is necessary as the base case for primitive types,
     and type variables, but not for composite types.
@@ -25867,7 +25912,7 @@ \section*{Appendix: Algorithmic Subtyping}
 \item
   \textbf{Left Top:}
   if $T_0$ is \DYNAMIC{} or \VOID{}
-  then \SubtypeNE{T_0}{T_1} if \SubtypeNE{\code{Object?}}{T_1}.
+  then \SubtypeNE{T_0}{T_1} if{}f \SubtypeNE{\code{Object?}}{T_1}.
 \item
   \textbf{Left Bottom:}
   if $T_0$ is \code{Never} then \SubtypeNE{T_0}{T_1}.
@@ -25903,8 +25948,7 @@ \section*{Appendix: Algorithmic Subtyping}
     if $T_1$ is \code{FutureOr<$S$>} for some $S$,
     then the query is true if{}f \SubtypeNE{\code{Null}}{S}.
   \item
-    if $T_1$ is \code{Null} or \code{$S$?} for some $S$,
-    then the query is true.
+    if $T_1$ is \code{$S$?} for some $S$ then the query is true.
   \item
     Otherwise, the query is false.
   \end{itemize}
@@ -25947,7 +25991,7 @@ \section*{Appendix: Algorithmic Subtyping}
   \begin{itemize}
   \item either \SubtypeNE{T_0}{\code{Future<$S_1$>}}.
   \item or \SubtypeNE{T_0}{S_1}.
-  \item or $T_0$ is $X_0$ and $X_0$ has bound $S_0$ and \SubtypeNE{S_0}{T_1}.
+  \item or $T_0$ is $X_0$ and $X_0$ has bound $B_0$ and \SubtypeNE{B_0}{T_1}.
   \item or $T_0$ is \code{$X_0$\,\&\,$S_0$} and \SubtypeNE{S_0}{T_1}.
   \end{itemize}
 \item
@@ -25957,7 +26001,7 @@ \section*{Appendix: Algorithmic Subtyping}
   \begin{itemize}
   \item either \SubtypeNE{T_0}{S_1}.
   \item or \SubtypeNE{T_0}{\code{Null}}.
-  \item or $T_0$ is $X_0$ and $X_0$ has bound $S_0$ and \SubtypeNE{S_0}{T_1}.
+  \item or $T_0$ is $X_0$ and $X_0$ has bound $B_0$ and \SubtypeNE{B_0}{T_1}.
   \item or $T_0$ is \code{$X_0$\,\&\,$S_0$} and \SubtypeNE{S_0}{T_1}.
   \end{itemize}
 \item
@@ -25995,7 +26039,10 @@ \section*{Appendix: Algorithmic Subtyping}
     $S_0$\,$y_0$, \ldots, $S_p$\,$y_p$, %
     [$S_{p+1}$\,$y_{p+1}$, \ldots, $S_q$\,$y_q$])}
 
-  where each of the following hold:
+  such that each of the following criteria is satisfied,
+  where the $Z_i$ are fresh type variables with bounds
+  $B_{0i}[Z_0/X_0, \ldots, Z_k/X_k]$:
+
   \begin{itemize}
   \item $p \geq n$.
   \item $m \geq q$.
@@ -26004,8 +26051,6 @@ \section*{Appendix: Algorithmic Subtyping}
   \item \SubtypeNE{U_0[Z_0/X_0, \ldots, Z_k/X_k]}{U_1[Z_0/Y_0, \ldots, Z_k/Y_k]}.
   \item $B_{0i}[Z_0/X_0, \ldots, Z_k/X_k]$ and $B_{1i}[Z_0/Y_0, \ldots, Z_k/Y_k]$
     have the same canonical syntax, for $i \in 0 .. k$.
-  \item where the $Z_i$ are fresh type variables with bounds
-    $B_{0i}[Z_0/X_0, \ldots, Z_k/X_k]$.
   \end{itemize}
 \item
   \textbf{Named Function Types:}
@@ -26015,7 +26060,7 @@ \section*{Appendix: Algorithmic Subtyping}
     $U_0$ \FUNCTION<$X_0$\,\EXTENDS\,$B_{00}$, \ldots, %
       $X_k$\,\EXTENDS\,$B_{0k}$>(%
         $V_0$\,$x_0$, \ldots, $V_n$\,$x_n$, %
-          \{ $r_{0,n+1}$\,$V_{n+1}$\,$x_{n+1}$, \ldots, $r_{0m}$\,$V_m$\,$x_m$\})}
+          \{$r_{0,n+1}$\,$V_{n+1}$\,$x_{n+1}$, \ldots, $r_{0m}$\,$V_m$\,$x_m$\})}
 
   where $r_{0j}$ is empty or \REQUIRED{} for $j \in n+1 .. m$
   and $T_1$ is
@@ -26024,7 +26069,7 @@ \section*{Appendix: Algorithmic Subtyping}
     $U_1$ \FUNCTION<$Y_0$\,\EXTENDS\,$B_{10}$, \ldots, %
       $Y_k$\,\EXTENDS\,$B_{1k}$>(%
         $S_0$\,$y_0$, \ldots, $S_n$\,$y_n$, %
-          \{ $r_{1,n+1}$\,$S_{n+1}$\,$y_{n+1}$, \ldots, $r_{1q}$\,$S_q$\,$y_q$\})}
+          \{$r_{1,n+1}$\,$S_{n+1}$\,$y_{n+1}$, \ldots, $r_{1q}$\,$S_q$\,$y_q$\})}
 
   where $r_{1j}$ is empty or \REQUIRED{} for $j \in n+1 .. q$
   and the following criteria are all satisfied,