Existential Owners for Ownership Types.

Wrigstad, Tobias; Clarke, Dave

doi:10.5381/jot.2007.6.4.a5

Cited by 24 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Each class could only be declared in one place, so programmers had to resort to copying code. We mitigate that problem here with reusable classes: effectively they correspond to classes with a single, implicit existential owner parameter [27,40]. The present approach is still limited.…”

Section: Comparison With Related Ownership Type Systemsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Implicit ownership types for memory management

Zhao

Baker

Hunt

et al. 2008

Science of Computer Programming

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThe Real-time Specification for Java (RTSJ) introduced a range of language features for explicit memory management. While the RTSJ gives programmers fine control over memory use and allows linear allocation and constant-time deallocation, the RTSJ relies upon dynamic runtime checks for safety, making it unsuitable for safety critical applications. We introduce ScopeJ, a statically-typed, multi-threaded, object calculus in which scopes are first class constructs. Scopes reify allocation contexts and provide a safe alternative to automatic memory management. Safety follows from the use of an ownership type system that enforces a topology on run-time patterns of references. ScopeJ's type system is novel in that ownership annotations are implicit. This substantially reduces the burden for developers and increases the likelihood of adoption. The notion of implicit ownership is particularly appealing when combined with pluggable type systems, as one can apply different type constraints to different components of an application depending on the requirements without changing the source language. In related work we have demonstrated the usefulness of our approach in the context of highly-responsive systems and stream processing.Published by Elsevier B.V.

show abstract

Section: Comparison With Related Ownership Type Systemsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Implicit ownership types for memory management

Zhao

Baker

Hunt

et al. 2008

Science of Computer Programming

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This approach allows owner-polymorphic methods to be elegantly implemented and it distinguishes objects with different and equal unknown owners. Existential quantification also helps to implement effective run-time downcasts in the presence of ownership types: a subtype's inferred owners are treated as existentially quantified [32]. The key difference between these approaches and ours is that existential ownership expresses don't care whereas gradual types express don't know concerning the unknown owners.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gradual Ownership Types

Sergey

Clarke

2012

Programming Languages and Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Gradual Ownership Types are a framework allowing programs to be partially annotated with ownership types, while providing the same encapsulation guarantees. The formalism provides a static guarantee of the desired encapsulation property for fully annotated programs, and dynamic guarantees for partially annotated programs via dynamic checks inserted by the compiler. This enables a smooth migration from ownership-unaware to ownership-typed code. The paper provides a formal account of gradual ownership types. The theoretical novelty of this work is in adapting the notion of gradual type system with respect to program heap properties, which, unlike types in functional languages or object calculi, impose restrictions not only on data, but also on the environment the data is being processed in. From the practical side, we evaluate applicability of Gradual Ownership Types for Java 1.4 in the context of the Java Collection Framework and measure the necessary amount of annotations for ensuring the owners-as-dominators invariant.

show abstract

“…Existential owners can be used in dynamic casts [24]. Casts are not supported in Jo∃, but they should be straightforward to add.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Existential Quantification for Variant Ownership

Cameron

Drossopoulou

2009

Programming Languages and Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Ownership types characterize the topology of objects in the heap, through a characterization of the context to which an object belongs. They have been used to support reasoning, memory management, concurrency, etc. Subtyping is traditionally invariant w.r.t. contexts, which has often proven inflexible in some situations. Recent work has introduced restricted forms of subtype variance and unknown context, but in a rather ad-hoc and restricted way.We develop Jo∃, a calculus which supports parameterisation of types, as well as contexts, and allows variant subtyping of contexts based on existential quantification. Jo∃ is more expressive, general, and uniform than previous works which add variance to ownership languages. Our explicit use of existential types makes the connection to type-theoretic foundations from existential types more transparent. We prove type soundness for Jo∃ and extend it to Jo∃ deep which enforces the owners-as-dominators property.

show abstract

Existential Owners for Ownership Types.

Cited by 24 publications

References 14 publications

Implicit ownership types for memory management

Implicit ownership types for memory management

Gradual Ownership Types

Existential Quantification for Variant Ownership

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About