We analyse the problem of combining linearity, effects, and exceptions, in abstract models of programming languages, as the issue of providing some kind of strength for a monad $𝑇(-\oplus 𝐸)$ in a linear setting. We consider in particular for T the allocation monad, which we introduce to model and study resource-safety properties. We apply these results to a series of two linear effectful calculi for which we establish their resource-safety properties. The first calculus is a linear (optionally ordered) call-by-push-value language with two allocation effects $\text{𝐧𝐞𝐰}$ and $\text{𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐞}$. The resource-safety properties follow from the linear and ordered character of the typing rules. We then integrate exceptions with linearity and effects by adjoining default destruction actions to types, as inspired by C++/Rust destructors. We see destructors as objects $𝛿:𝐴\to 𝑇𝐼$ in the slice category over $𝑇𝐼$. This construction gives rise to a second calculus, the resource call-by-push-value, featuring exceptions and destructors, and whose weakening and exchange rules perform side-effects. It is therefore affine at the level of types but ordered at the level of derivations. As in C++ and Rust, a “move” operation—the side-effecting exchange rule—is necessary for releasing resources in random order, as opposed to LIFO order.

A hierarchy of type universes is a rudimentary ingredient in the type theories of many proof assistants to prevent the logical inconsistency resulting from combining dependent functions and the type-in-type axiom. In this work, we argue that a universe hierarchy is not the only option for universes in type theory. Taking inspiration from Leivant’s Stratified System F, we introduce Stratified Type Theory (), where rather than stratifying universes by levels, we stratify typing judgements and restrict the domain of dependent functions to strictly lower levels. Even with type-in-type, this restriction suffices to enforce consistency. In , we consider a number of extensions beyond just stratified dependent functions. First, the subsystem employs McBride’s crude-but-effective stratification (also known as displacement) as a simple form of level polymorphism where global definitions with concrete levels can be displaced uniformly to any higher level. Second, to recover some expressivity lost due to the restriction on dependent function domains, the full includes a separate nondependent function type with a floating domain whose level matches that of the overall function type. Finally, we have implemented a prototype type checker for extended with datatypes and inference for level and displacement annotations, along with a small core library. We have proven to be consistent and to be type safe, but consistency of the full remains an open problem, largely due to the interaction between floating functions and cumulativity of judgements. Nevertheless, we believe to be consistent, and as evidence have verified the ill-typedness of some well-known type-theoretic paradoxes using our implementation.

Dependent pattern matching is a key feature in dependently typed programming. However, there is a theory-practice disconnect: while many proof assistants implement pattern matching as primitive, theoretical presentations give semantics to pattern matching by elaborating to eliminators. Though theoretically convenient, eliminators can be awkward and verbose, particularly for complex combinations of patterns. This work aims to bridge the theory-practice gap by presenting a direct categorical semantics for pattern matching, which does not elaborate to eliminators. This is achieved using sheaf theory to describe when sets of arrows (terms) can be amalgamated into a single arrow. We present a language with top-level dependent pattern matching, without specifying which sets of patterns are considered covering for a match. Then, we give a sufficient criterion for which pattern-sets admit a sound model: patterns should be in the canonical coverage for the category of contexts. Finally, we use sheaf-theoretic saturation conditions to devise some allowable sets of patterns. We are able to express and exceed the status quo, giving semantics for datatype constructors, nested patterns, absurd patterns, propositional equality, and dot patterns.

Guarded Interaction Trees are a structure and a fully formalized framework for representing higher-order computations with higher-order effects in Coq. We present an extension of Guarded Interaction Trees to support formal reasoning about context-dependent effects. That is, effects whose behaviors depend on the evaluation context, e.g., call/cc, shift, and reset. Using and reasoning about such effects is challenging since certain compositionality principles no longer hold in the presence of such effects. For example, the so-called “bind rule” in modern program logics (which allows one to reason modularly about a term inside a context) is no longer valid. The goal of our extension is to support representation and reasoning about context-dependent effects in the most painless way possible. To that end, our extension is conservative: the reasoning principles (and the Coq implementation) for context-independent effects remain the same. We show that our implementation of context-dependent effects is viable and powerful. We use it to give direct-style denotational semantics for higher-order programming languages with call/cc and with delimited continuations. We extend the program logic for Guarded Interaction Trees to account for context-dependent effects, and we use the program logic to prove that the denotational semantics is adequate with respect to the operational semantics. This is achieved by constructing logical relations between syntax and semantics inside the program logic. Additionally, we retain the ability to combine multiple effects in a modular way, which we demonstrate by showing type soundness for safe interoperability of a programming language with delimited continuations and a programming language with higher-order store.

We present a compositional denotational semantics for a functional language with first-class parallel composition and shared-memory operations whose operational semantics follows the Release/Acquire weak memory model (RA). The semantics is formulated in Moggi’s monadic approach, and is based on Brookes-style traces. To do so we adapt Brookes’s traces to Kang et al.’s view-based machine for RA, and supplement Brookes’s mumble and stutter closure operations with additional operations, specific to RA. The latter provides a more nuanced understanding of traces that uncouples them from operational interrupted executions. We show that our denotational semantics is adequate and use it to validate various program transformations of interest. This is the first work to put weak memory models on the same footing as many other programming effects in Moggi’s standard monadic approach.

Notions of computation can be modelled by monads. Algebraic effects offer a characterization of monads in terms of algebraic operations and equational axioms, where operations are basic programming features, such as reading or updating the state, and axioms specify observably equivalent expressions. However, many useful programming features depend on additional mechanisms such as delimited scopes or dynamically allocated resources. Such mechanisms can be supported via extensions to algebraic effects including scoped effects and parameterized algebraic theories . We present a fresh perspective on scoped effects by translation into a variation of parameterized algebraic theories. The translation enables a new approach to equational reasoning for scoped effects and gives rise to an alternative characterization of monads in terms of generators and equations involving both scoped and algebraic operations. We demonstrate the power of our fresh perspective by way of equational characterizations of several known models of scoped effects.

Mechanisation of programming language research is of growing interest, and the act of mechanising type systems and their metatheory is generally becoming easier as new techniques are invented. However, state-of-the-art techniques mostly rely on structurality of the type system — that weakening, contraction, and exchange are admissible and variables can be used unrestrictedly once assumed. Linear logic, and many related subsequent systems, provide motivations for breaking some of these assumptions. We present a framework for mechanising the metatheory of certain substructural type systems, in a style resembling mechanised metatheory of structural type systems. The framework covers a wide range of simply typed syntaxes with semiring usage annotations, via a metasyntax of typing rules. The metasyntax for the premises of a typing rule is related to bunched logic, featuring both sharing and separating conjunction, roughly corresponding to the additive and multiplicative features of linear logic. We use the uniformity of syntaxes to derive type system-generic renaming, substitution, and a form of linearity checking.

Algebraic effects offer a versatile framework that covers a wide variety of effects. However, the family of operations that delimit scopes are not algebraic and are usually modelled as handlers, thus preventing them from being used freely in conjunction with algebraic operations. Although proposals for scoped operations exist, they are either ad-hoc and unprincipled, or too inconvenient for practical programming. This paper provides the best of both worlds: a theoretically-founded model of scoped effects that is convenient for implementation and reasoning. Our new model is based on an adjunction between a locally finitely presentable category and a category of functorial algebras . Using comparison functors between adjunctions, we show that our new model, an existing indexed model, and a third approach that simulates scoped operations in terms of algebraic ones have equal expressivity for handling scoped operations. We consider our new model to be the sweet spot between ease of implementation and structuredness. Additionally, our approach automatically induces fusion laws of handlers of scoped effects, which are useful for reasoning and optimisation.

Compiler correctness proofs for higher-order concurrent languages are difficult: they involve establishing a termination-preserving refinement between a concurrent high-level source language and an implementation that uses low-level shared memory primitives. However, existing logics for proving concurrent refinement either neglect properties such as termination, or only handle first-order state. In this paper, we address these limitations by extending Iris, a recent higher-order concurrent separation logic, with support for reasoning about termination-preserving refinements. To demonstrate the power of these extensions, we prove the correctness of an efficient implementation of a higher-order, session-typed language. To our knowledge, this is the first program logic capable of giving a compiler correctness proof for such a language. The soundness of our extensions and our compiler correctness proof have been mechanized in Coq.