Constructive type theory combines logic and programming in one language. This is useful both for reasoning about programs written in type theory, as well as for reasoning about other programming languages inside type theory. It is well-known that it is challenging to extend these applications to languages with recursion and computational effects such as probabilistic choice, because these features are not easily represented in constructive type theory. We show how to define and reason about FPC ⊕ , a programming language with probabilistic choice and recursive types, in guarded type theory. We use higher inductive types to represent finite distributions and guarded recursion to model recursion. We define both operational and denotational semantics of FPC ⊕ , as well as a relation between the two. The relation can be used to prove adequacy, but we also show how to use it to reason about programs up to contextual equivalence.

We present guarded interaction trees — a structure and a fully formalized framework for representing higherorder computations with higher-order effects in Coq, inspired by domain theory and the recently proposed interaction trees. We also present an accompanying separation logic for reasoning about guarded interaction trees. To demonstrate that guarded interaction trees provide a convenient domain for interpreting higher-order languages with effects, we define an interpretation of a PCF-like language with effects and show that this interpretation is sound and computationally adequate; we prove the latter using a logical relation defined using the separation logic. Guarded interaction trees also allow us to combine different effects and reason about them modularly. To illustrate this point, we give a modular proof of type soundness of cross-language interactions for safe interoperability of different higher-order languages with different effects. All results in the paper are formalized in Coq using the Iris logic over guarded type theory.

We present a gradually typed language, GrEff, with effects and handlers that supports migration from unchecked to checked effect typing. This serves as a simple model of the integration of an effect typing discipline with an existing effectful typed language that does not track fine-grained effect information. Our language supports a simple module system to model the programming model of gradual migration from unchecked to checked effect typing in the style of Typed Racket.

The surface language GrEff is given semantics by elaboration to a core language Core GrEff. We equip Core GrEff with an inequational theory for reasoning about the semantic error ordering and desired program equivalences for programming with effects and handlers. We derive an operational semantics for the language from the equations provable in the theory. We then show that the theory is sound by constructing an operational logical relations model to prove the graduality theorem. This extends prior work on embedding-projection pair models of gradual typing to handle effect typing and subtyping.

Parametric polymorphism and gradual typing have proven to be a difficult combination, with no language yet produced that satisfies the fundamental theorems of each: parametricity and graduality. Notably, Toro, Labrada, and Tanter (POPL 2019) conjecture that for any gradual extension of System F that uses dynamic type generation, graduality and parametricity are “simply incompatible”. However, we argue that it is not graduality and parametricity that are incompatible per se, but instead that combining the syntax of System F with dynamic type generation as in previous work necessitates type-directed computation, which we show has been a common source of graduality and parametricity violations in previous work.

We then show that by modifying the syntax of universal and existential types to make the type name generation explicit, we remove the need for type-directed computation, and get a language that satisfies both graduality and parametricity theorems. The language has a simple runtime semantics, which can be explained by translation to a statically typed language where the dynamic type is interpreted as a dynamically extensible sum type. Far from being in conflict, we show that the parametricity theorem follows as a direct corollary of a relational interpretation of the graduality property.

We present gradual type theory, a logic and type theory for call-by-name gradual typing. We define the central constructions of gradual typing (the dynamic type, type casts and type error) in a novel way, by universal properties relative to new judgments for gradual type and term dynamism, which were developed in blame calculi and to state the “gradual guarantee” theorem of gradual typing. Combined with the ordinary extensionality ($𝜂$) principles that type theory provides, we show that most of the standard operational behavior of casts is uniquely determined by the gradual guarantee. This provides a semantic justification for the definitions of casts, and shows that non-standard definitions of casts must violate these principles. Our type theory is the internal language of a certain class of preorder categories called equipments. We give a general construction of an equipment interpreting gradual type theory from a 2-category representing non-gradual types and programs, which is a semantic analogue of Findler and Felleisen’s definitions of contracts, and use it to build some concrete domain-theoretic models of gradual typing.

Gradually typed languages are designed to support both dynamically typed and statically typed programming styles while preserving the benefits of each. While existing gradual type soundness theorems for these languages aim to show that type-based reasoning is preserved when moving from the fully static setting to a gradual one, these theorems do not imply that correctness of type-based refactorings and optimizations is preserved. Establishing correctness of program transformations is technically difficult, because it requires reasoning about program equivalence, and is often neglected in the metatheory of gradual languages.

In this paper, we propose an axiomatic account of program equivalence in a gradual cast calculus, which we formalize in a logic we call gradual type theory (GTT). Based on Levy’s call-by-push-value, GTT gives an axiomatic account of both call-by-value and call-by-name gradual languages. Based on our axiomatic account we prove many theorems that justify optimizations and refactorings in gradually typed languages. For example, uniqueness principles for gradual type connectives show that if the βη laws hold for a connective, then casts between that connective must be equivalent to the so-called “lazy” cast semantics. Contrapositively, this shows that “eager” cast semantics violates the extensionality of function types. As another example, we show that gradual upcasts are pure functions and, dually, gradual downcasts are strict functions. We show the consistency and applicability of our axiomatic theory by proving that a contract-based implementation using the lazy cast semantics gives a logical relations model of our type theory, where equivalence in GTT implies contextual equivalence of the programs. Since GTT also axiomatizes the dynamic gradual guarantee, our model also establishes this central theorem of gradual typing. The model is parametrized by the implementation of the dynamic types, and so gives a family of implementations that validate type-based optimization and the gradual guarantee.

Gradually typed languages allow statically typed and dynamically typed code to interact while maintaining benefits of both styles. The key to reasoning about these mixed programs is Siek-Vitousek-Cimini-Boyland’s (dynamic) gradual guarantee, which says that giving components of a program more precise types only adds runtime type checking, and does not otherwise change behavior. In this paper, we give a semantic reformulation of the gradual guarantee called graduality. We change the name to promote the analogy that graduality is to gradual typing what parametricity is to polymorphism. Each gives a local-to-global, syntactic-to-semantic reasoning principle that is formulated in terms of a kind of observational approximation.

Utilizing the analogy, we develop a novel logical relation for proving graduality. We show that embedding-projection pairs (ep pairs) are to graduality what relations are to parametricity. We argue that casts between two types where one is “more dynamic” (less precise) than the other necessarily form an ep pair, and we use this to cleanly prove the graduality cases for casts from the ep-pair property. To construct ep pairs, we give an analysis of the type dynamism relation—also known as type precision or naïve subtyping—that interprets the rules for type dynamism as compositional constructions on ep pairs, analogous to the coercion interpretation of subtyping.

We present gradual type theory, a logic and type theory for call-by-name gradual typing. We define the central constructions of gradual typing (the dynamic type, type casts and type error) in a novel way, by universal properties relative to new judgments for gradual type and term dynamism. These dynamism judgements build on prior work in blame calculi and on the “gradual guarantee” theorem of gradual typing. Combined with the ordinary extensionality (eta) principles that type theory provides, we show that most of the standard operational behavior of casts is uniquely determined by the gradual guarantee. This provides a semantic justification for the definitions of casts, and shows that non-standard definitions of casts must violate these principles. Our type theory is the internal language of a certain class of preorder categories called equipments. We give a general construction of an equipment interpreting gradual type theory from a 2-category representing non-gradual types and programs, which is a semantic analogue of the interpretation of gradual typing using contracts, and use it to build some concrete domain-theoretic models of gradual typing.

In some bicategories, the 1-cells are ‘morphisms’ between the 0-cells, such as functors between categories, but in others they are ‘objects’ over the 0-cells, such as bimodules, spans, distributors, or parametrized spectra. Many bicategorical notions do not work well in these cases, because the ‘morphisms between 0-cells’, such as ring homomorphisms, are missing. We can include them by using a pseudo double category, but usually these morphisms also induce base change functors acting on the 1-cells. We avoid complicated coherence problems by describing base change ‘nonalgebraically’, using categorical fibrations. The resulting ‘framed bicategories’ assemble into 2-categories, with attendant notions of equivalence, adjunction, and so on which are more appropriate for our examples than are the usual bicategorical ones.

We then describe two ways to construct framed bicategories. One is an analogue of rings and bimodules which starts from one framed bicategory and builds another. The other starts from a ‘monoidal fibration’, meaning a parametrized family of monoidal categories, and produces an analogue of the framed bicategory of spans. Combining the two, we obtain a construction which includes both enriched and internal categories as special cases.