Gradually typed programming languages, which allow for soundly mixing static and dynamically typed programming styles, present a strong challenge for metatheorists. Even the simplest sound gradually typed languages feature at least recursion and errors, with realistic languages featuring furthermore runtime allocation of memory locations and dynamic type tags. Further, the desired metatheoretic properties of gradually typed languages have become increasingly sophisticated: validity of type-based equational reasoning as well as the relational property known as graduality. Many recent works have tackled verifying these properties, but the resulting mathematical developments are highly repetitive and tedious, with few reusable theorems persisting across different developments.

In this work, we present a new denotational semantics for gradual typing developed using guarded domain theory. Guarded domain theory combines the generality of step-indexed logical relations for modeling advanced programming features with the modularity and reusability of denotational semantics. We demonstrate the feasibility of this approach with a model of a simple gradually typed lambda calculus and prove the validity of beta-eta equality and the graduality theorem for the denotational model. This model should provide the basis for a reusable mathematical theory of gradually typed program semantics. Finally, we have mechanized most of the core theorems of our development in Guarded Cubical Agda, a recent extension of Agda with support for the guarded recursive constructions we use.

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.

Gradually typed languages are designed to support both dynamically typed and statically typed programming styles while preserving the benefits of each. Sound gradually typed languages dynamically check types at runtime at the boundary between statically typed and dynamically typed modules. However, there is much disagreement in the gradual typing literature over how to enforce complex types such as tuples, lists, functions and objects. In this paper, we propose a new perspective on the design of runtime gradual type enforcement: runtime type casts exist precisely to ensure the correctness of certain type-based refactorings and optimizations. For instance, for simple types, a language designer might desire that beta-eta equality is valid. We show that this perspective is useful by demonstrating that a cast semantics can be derived from beta-eta equality. We do this by providing an axiomatic account program equivalence in a gradual cast calculus in a logic we call gradual type theory (GTT). Based on Levy’s call-by-push-value, GTT allows us to axiomatize both call-by-value and call-by-name gradual languages. We then show that we can derive the behavior of casts for simple types from the corresponding eta equality principle and the assumption that the language satisfies a property called graduality, also known as the dynamic gradual guarantee. Since we can derive the semantics from the assumption of eta equality, we also receive a useful contrapositive: any observably different cast semantics that satisfies graduality must violate the eta equality. 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 parameterized 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 programming languages provide a way forward in the debate between static and dynamic typing. In a gradual language, statically typed and dynamically typed programs can intermingle, and dynamically typed scripts can be gradually migrated to a statically typed style. In a sound gradually typed language, static type information is just as reliable as in a static language, establishing correctness of type-based refactoring and optimization. To ensure this in the presence of dynamic typing, runtime type casts are inserted automatically at the boundary between static and dynamic code. However the design of these languages is somewhat ad hoc, with little guidance on how to ensure that static reasoning principles are valid. In my dissertation, I present a semantic framework for design and metatheoretic analysis of gradually typed languages based on the theory of embedding-projection pairs. I show that this semantics enables proofs of the fundamental soundness theorems of gradual typing, and that it is robust, applying it to different evaluation orders and programming features.

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.