Good Advice for Type-Directed Programming

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Good Advice for Type-Directed Programming Good Advice for Type-directed Programming Aspect-oriented Programming and Extensible Generic Functions Geoffrey Washburn Stephanie Weirich University of Pennsylvania {geoffw,sweirich}@cis.upenn.edu ABSTRACT of type-directed combinators to “scrap” this boilerplate. For Type-directed programming is an important idiom for soft- example, L¨ammeland Peyton Jones’s Haskell library pro- ware design. In type-directed programming the behavior of vides a combinator called gmapQ that maps a query over programs is guided by the type structure of data. It makes an arbitrary value’s children returning a list of the results. it possible to implement many sorts of operations, such as Using gmapQ it becomes trivial to implement a type-directed serialization, traversals, and queries, only once and without function, gsize, to compute the size of an arbitrary value. needing to continually revise their implementation as new gsize :: Data a => a -> Int data types are defined. gsize x = 1 + sum (gmapQ gsize x) Type-directed programming is the basis for recent research into “scrapping” tedious boilerplate code that arises in func- However, this line of research focused on closed type- tional programming with algebraic data types. This research directed functions. Closed type-directed functions require has primarily focused on writing type-directed functions that that all cases be defined in advance. Consequently, if the are closed to extension. However, L¨ammel and Peyton Jones programmer wanted gsize to behave in a specialized fashion recently developed a technique for writing openly extensible for one of their data types, they would need to edit the type-directed functions in Haskell by making clever use of definition of gmapQ. type classes. Unfortunately, this technique has a number of The alternative is to provide open type-directed functions. limitations. L¨ammel and Peyton Jones developed a method for writing We present an alternate approach to writing openly exten- openly extensible type-directed functions, via clever use of sible type-directed functions by using the aspect-oriented pro- Haskell type classes [13]. While their technique provides the gramming features provided by the language Aspectml. Our extensibility that was previously missing, there are caveats: solution not only avoids the limitations present in L¨ammel and Peyton Jones technique, but also allows type-directed • It only allows open extension at compile-time, pre- functions to be extended at any time with cases for types venting the programmer from indexing functions by that were not even known at compile-time. This capability dynamically created/loaded data types. is critical to writing programs that make use of dynamic • It is not possible to openly extend type-directed func- loading or runtime type generativity. tions with special cases for existential data types [14], nested data types [3], or generalized algebraic data 1. INTRODUCTION types (gadts) [23]. Each of these sorts of data types pose problems for constraint resolution. Type-directed programming (tdp) is an invaluable idiom for solving a wide class of programming problems. The • Each open type-directed function used introduces a behavior of a type-directed function is guided by the type typing constraint into the environment, which for poly- structure of its arguments. Serialization, traversals, and morphic functions is captures as part of the function’s queries can all be implemented via tdp, with the benefit that type. This makes it difficult to use these functions as they need only be written once and will continue to work first-class values because their types may be too con- even when new data types are added as the program evolves. strained to be used as arguments to other functions. tdp has become a popular technique for eliminating bor- ing “boilerplate” code that frequently arises in functional Because of these restrictions, L¨ammel and Peyton Jones programming with algebraic data types [11, 12, 8, 7]. The retain their old tdp mechanism as a fallback when openly goal in this research has been to develop easy-to-use libraries extensible type-directed functions cannot be used. Providing distinct mechanisms for open and closed tdp significantly increases the complexity of tdp for the user. Additionally, it may not be easy for a user unfamiliar with type inference Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for for type classes to understand why an extension to an open personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are type-directed function fails type-check. not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies We present an alternate approach to openly extensible bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to tdp using the aspect-oriented programming (aop) features republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. provided by the language Aspectml. Aspect-oriented pro- Copyright 2006 ACM X-XXXXX-XX-X/XX/XX ...$5.00. gramming languages allow programmers to specify what com- putations to perform as well as when to perform them. For example, aop in AspectJ [10] makes it easy to implement a (kinds) k ::= * kind of types profiler that records statistics concerning the number of calls | k1 -> k2 function kinds to each method. The what in this example is the computa- (polytypes) s ::= <a[:k]> r tion that does the recording and the when is the instant of (ρ-types) r ::= t monotypes | s -> s higher-rank function time just prior to execution of each method body. In aop | pc pt pointcut terminology, the specification of what to do is called advice (pointcut type) pt ::= (<a[:k]> s1 ~> s2) and the specification of when to do it is called a pointcut des- (monotypes) t ::= a type variables ignator. A set of pointcut designators and advice organized | T type constructors to perform a coherent task is called an aspect. | Unit unit We, with with Daniel S. Dantas and David Walker, devel- | String strings oped Aspectml as part of our research on extending aop to | Int integers | t -> t functions functional languages with parametric polymorphism [5]. In 1 2 | (t1, ... ,tn) tuples a language with parametric polymorphism, it is difficult to | [t] lists write advice when a function may be used at many types. | t1 t2 type application It is also common to simultaneously advise functions with (terms) e ::= x term variables disparate types. To address both of these issues, we found | C data constructors runtime type analysis necessary for writing expressive advice. | () unit | " ... " strings However, we began writing more complex examples in | i integers Aspectml, and we found that not only was runtime type | e1 e2 application analysis necessary for expressive advice, but that advice | let d in e end let declarations was necessary for expressive type-directed functions. In | (fn p=>e) abstraction particular, aspects enable openly extensible tdp. We use | case e of p=>e pattern matching advice to specify what the behavior of a specific type-directed | typecase t of t=>e typecase function should be for a newly defined type, or combination | #f[:pt]# pointcut set | any any poincut of types, and when a type-directed function should use the | (e1, ... ,en) tuples case provided for the new type. | [e1, ... ,en] lists Furthermore, we believe that our entirely dynamic mech- | e:s annotation anism for aop is critical to this expressiveness. Nearly all (patterns) p ::= _ wildcard other statically typed aop languages have a compile-time | x variable binding step called “weaving” that fixes the when. In contrast, de- | C data constructors | () unit cisions concerning when are made entirely at runtime in | " ... " strings Aspectml. Consequently, not only does tdp in Aspectml | i integers improve extensibility when writing programs, but also while | p1 p2 application the programs are running. For example, it is possible to | [p1, ... ,pn] tuples safely patch Aspectml programs at runtime or manipulate | (p1, ... ,pn) lists data types that did not exist at “compile-time”. | p:s annotation (trigger time) tm ::= before Our contributions in this paper include: | after | around • examples of tdp in Aspectml. (declarations) • examples of how runtime advising is essential to the expressiveness of type-directed functions. d ::= val p = e value binding | fun f <a[:k]> (p)[: s] = e recursive functions • a comparison of our technique with other approaches | datatype T [: k] = C:s data type def to openly extensible tdp. | advice tm e <a[:k]> (p ,p ,p )[: s] = e 1 1 1 3 2 advice def | case-advice tm e1 (x:t1,p1,p2)[:t2] = e2 In the next section, we introduce aop in Aspectml via examples. In Section 3, we explain and show examples of tdp Figure 1: AspectML syntax. Optional annotations are in in Aspectml. In Section 4, we show how aop in Aspectml math brackets. can be used to openly extend type-directed functions. In Section 5, we provide a more detailed comparison with related research. Finally, in Section 6, we discuss future directions an arbitrary member of this sequence. We use a typewriter and summarize our results. font to indicate Aspectml programs or fragments. Italicized text is used to denote meta-variables. We assume the usual conventions for variable binding and α-equivalence of types 2. THE ASPECTML LANGUAGE and terms. We begin by introducing the general design of Aspectml. The type structure of Aspectml has three layers: polytypes, Aspectml is a polymorphic functional, aspect-oriented lan- ρ-types, and monotypes. Unless, otherwise stated when we guage descended from the ml family of languages. The syntax refer to “types” in Aspectml we mean monotypes. Polytypes for a fragment of Aspectml is given Figure 1. It is most are normally written <a:k> r where a:k is a list of binding similar to Standard ml [19], but occasionally uses OCaml or type variables with their kinds and r is a ρ-type.
Recommended publications
  • A Brief Introduction to Aspect-Oriented Programming
    R R R A Brief Introduction to Aspect-Oriented Programming" R R Historical View Of Languages" R •# Procedural language" •# Functional language" •# Object-Oriented language" 1 R R Acknowledgements" R •# Zhenxiao Yang" •# Gregor Kiczales" •# Eclipse website for AspectJ (www.eclipse.org/aspectj) " R R Procedural Language" R •# Also termed imperative language" •# Describe" –#An explicit sequence of steps to follow to produce a result" •# Examples: Basic, Pascal, C, Fortran" 2 R R Functional Language" R •# Describe everything as a function (e.g., data, operations)" •# (+ 3 4); (add (prod 4 5) 3)" •# Examples" –# LISP, Scheme, ML, Haskell" R R Logical Language" R •# Also termed declarative language" •# Establish causal relationships between terms" –#Conclusion :- Conditions" –#Read as: If Conditions then Conclusion" •# Examples: Prolog, Parlog" 3 R R Object-Oriented Programming" R •# Describe " –#A set of user-defined objects " –#And communications among them to produce a (user-defined) result" •# Basic features" –#Encapsulation" –#Inheritance" –#Polymorphism " R R OOP (cont$d)" R •# Example languages" –#First OOP language: SIMULA-67 (1970)" –#Smalltalk, C++, Java" –#Many other:" •# Ada, Object Pascal, Objective C, DRAGOON, BETA, Emerald, POOL, Eiffel, Self, Oblog, ESP, POLKA, Loops, Perl, VB" •# Are OOP languages procedural? " 4 R R We Need More" R •# Major advantage of OOP" –# Modular structure" •# Potential problems with OOP" –# Issues distributed in different modules result in tangled code." –# Example: error logging, failure handling, performance
    [Show full text]
  • The Machine That Builds Itself: How the Strengths of Lisp Family
    Khomtchouk et al. OPINION NOTE The Machine that Builds Itself: How the Strengths of Lisp Family Languages Facilitate Building Complex and Flexible Bioinformatic Models Bohdan B. Khomtchouk1*, Edmund Weitz2 and Claes Wahlestedt1 *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract 1Center for Therapeutic Innovation and Department of We address the need for expanding the presence of the Lisp family of Psychiatry and Behavioral programming languages in bioinformatics and computational biology research. Sciences, University of Miami Languages of this family, like Common Lisp, Scheme, or Clojure, facilitate the Miller School of Medicine, 1120 NW 14th ST, Miami, FL, USA creation of powerful and flexible software models that are required for complex 33136 and rapidly evolving domains like biology. We will point out several important key Full list of author information is features that distinguish languages of the Lisp family from other programming available at the end of the article languages and we will explain how these features can aid researchers in becoming more productive and creating better code. We will also show how these features make these languages ideal tools for artificial intelligence and machine learning applications. We will specifically stress the advantages of domain-specific languages (DSL): languages which are specialized to a particular area and thus not only facilitate easier research problem formulation, but also aid in the establishment of standards and best programming practices as applied to the specific research field at hand. DSLs are particularly easy to build in Common Lisp, the most comprehensive Lisp dialect, which is commonly referred to as the “programmable programming language.” We are convinced that Lisp grants programmers unprecedented power to build increasingly sophisticated artificial intelligence systems that may ultimately transform machine learning and AI research in bioinformatics and computational biology.
    [Show full text]
  • Continuation Join Points
    Continuation Join Points Yusuke Endoh, Hidehiko Masuhara, Akinori Yonezawa (University of Tokyo) 1 Background: Aspects are reusable in AspectJ (1) Example: A generic logging aspect can log user inputs in a CUI program by defining a pointcut Login Generic Logging id = readLine(); Aspect Main CUI Aspect cmd = readLine(); pointcut input(): call(readLine()) logging return value 2 Background: Aspects are reusable in AspectJ (2) Example: A generic logging aspect can also log environment variable by also defining a pointcut Q. Now, if we want to log environment variable (getEnv) …? Generic Logging Aspect A. Merely concretize an aspect additionally Env Aspect CUI Aspect pointcut input(): pointcut input(): Aspect reusability call(getEnv()) call(readLine()) 3 Problem: Aspects are not as reusable as expected Example: A generic logging aspect can NOT log inputs in a GUI program by defining a pointcut Login Generic Logging void onSubmit(id) Aspect { … } Main void onSubmit(cmd) GUI Aspect { … } pointcut Input(): call(onSubmit(Str)) logging arguments 4 Why can’t we reuse the aspect? Timing of advice execution depends on both advice modifiers and pointcuts Logging Aspect (inner) Generic Logging abstract pointcut: input(); Aspect after() returning(String s) : input() { Log.add(s); } unable to change to before 5 Workaround in AspectJ is awkward: overview Required changes for more reusable aspect: generic aspect (e.g., logging) two abstract pointcuts, two advice decls. and an auxiliary method concrete aspects two concrete pointcuts even if they are not needed 6 Workaround in AspectJ is awkward: how to define generic aspect Simple Logging Aspect 1. define two pointcuts abstract pointcut: inputAfter(); for before and after abstract pointcut: inputBefore(); after() returning(String s) : inputAfter() { log(s); } 2.
    [Show full text]
  • “An Introduction to Aspect Oriented Programming in E”
    “An Introduction to Aspect Oriented Programming in e” David Robinson [email protected] Rel_1.0: 21-JUNE-2006 Copyright © David Robinson 2006, all rights reserved 1 This white paper is based on the forthcoming book “What's so wrong with patching anyway? A pragmatic guide to using aspects and e”. Please contact [email protected] for more information. Rel_1.0: 21-JUNE-2006 2 Copyright © David Robinson 2006, all rights reserved Preface ______________________________________ 4 About Verilab__________________________________ 7 1 Introduction _______________________________ 8 2 What are aspects - part I? _____________________ 10 3 Why do I need aspects? What’s wrong with cross cutting concerns? ___________________________________ 16 4 Surely OOP doesn’t have any problems? ___________ 19 5 Why does AOP help?_________________________ 28 6 Theory vs. real life - what else is AOP good for? ______ 34 7 What are aspects - part II?_____________________ 40 Bibliography _________________________________ 45 Index ______________________________________ 48 Rel_1.0: 21-JUNE-2006 Copyright © David Robinson 2006, all rights reserved 3 Preface “But when our hypothetical Blub programmer looks in the other direction, up the power continuum, he doesn't realize he's looking up. What he sees are merely weird languages. He probably considers them about equivalent in power to Blub, but with all this other hairy stuff thrown in as well. Blub is good enough for him, because he thinks in Blub” Paul Graham 1 This paper is taken from a forthcoming book about Aspect Oriented Programming. Not just the academic stuff that you’ll read about elsewhere, although that’s useful, but the more pragmatic side of it as well.
    [Show full text]
  • Structuring Languages As Object-Oriented Libraries
    Structuring Languages as Object-Oriented Libraries Structuring Languages as Object-Oriented Libraries ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof. dr. ir. K. I. J. Maex ten overstaan van een door het College voor Promoties ingestelde commissie, in het openbaar te verdedigen in de Agnietenkapel op donderdag november , te . uur door Pablo Antonio Inostroza Valdera geboren te Concepción, Chili Promotiecommissie Promotores: Prof. Dr. P. Klint Universiteit van Amsterdam Prof. Dr. T. van der Storm Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Overige leden: Prof. Dr. J.A. Bergstra Universiteit van Amsterdam Prof. Dr. B. Combemale University of Toulouse Dr. C. Grelck Universiteit van Amsterdam Prof. Dr. P.D. Mosses Swansea University Dr. B.C.d.S. Oliveira The University of Hong Kong Prof. Dr. M. de Rijke Universiteit van Amsterdam Faculteit der Natuurwetenschappen, Wiskunde en Informatica The work in this thesis has been carried out at Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica (CWI) under the auspices of the research school IPA (Institute for Programming research and Algorith- mics) and has been supported by NWO, in the context of Jacquard Project .. “Next Generation Auditing: Data-Assurance as a Service”. Contents Introduction .Language Libraries . .Object Algebras . .Language Libraries with Object Algebras . .Origins of the Chapters . .Software Artifacts . .Dissertation Structure . Recaf: Java Dialects as Libraries .Introduction . .Overview.................................... .Statement Virtualization . .Full Virtualization . .Implementation of Recaf . .Case Studies . .Discussion . .Related Work . .Conclusion . Tracing Program Transformations with String Origins .Introduction . .String Origins . .Applications of String Origins . .Implementation . .Related Work . .Conclusion . Modular Interpreters with Implicit Context Propagation .Introduction . .Background . v Contents .Implicit Context Propagation .
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding AOP Through the Study of Interpreters
    Understanding AOP through the Study of Interpreters Robert E. Filman Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science NASA Ames Research Center, MS 269-2 Moffett Field, CA 94035 rfi[email protected] ABSTRACT mapping is of interest (e.g., variables vs. functions). The I return to the question of what distinguishes AOP lan- pseudo-code includes only enough detail to convey the ideas guages by considering how the interpreters of AOP lan- I’m trying to express. guages differ from conventional interpreters. Key elements for static transformation are seen to be redefinition of the Of course, a real implementation would need implementa- set and lookup operators in the interpretation of the lan- tions of the helper functions. In general, the helper functions guage. This analysis also yields a definition of crosscutting on environments—lookup, set, and extend—can be manip- in terms of interlacing of interpreter actions. ulated to create a large variety of different language fea- tures. The most straightforward implementation makes an environment a set of symbol–value pairs (a map from sym- 1. INTRODUCTION bols to values) joined to a pointer to a parent environment. I return to the question of what distinguishes AOP lan- Lookup finds the pair of the appropriate symbol, (perhaps guages from others [12, 14]. chaining through the parent environments in its search), re- turning its value; set finds the pair and changes its value A good way of understanding a programming language is by field; and extend builds a new map with some initial val- studying its interpreter [17]. This motif has been recently ues whose parent is the environment being extended.
    [Show full text]
  • Composable Compilers: Evolution Toward a Practical Reality
    COMPOSABLE COMPILERS: EVOLUTION TOWARD A PRACTICAL REALITY A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Chinawat Isradisaikul August 2017 c 2017 Chinawat Isradisaikul COMPOSABLE COMPILERS: EVOLUTION TOWARD A PRACTICAL REALITY Chinawat Isradisaikul, Ph.D. Cornell University 2017 The ability to add new features to programming languages is essential for language design experimentation and domain-specific developments, but implementing and maintaining small language extensions in traditional compilers remain a challenge. General-purpose programming languages do not have desired mechanisms to integrate small, indepen- dently developed extensions into a working programming language. At the same time, domain-specific languages that support such integration struggle to gain popularity in the programming language community. More language mechanisms and tools are needed as a middle ground so that a broader range of programmers can implement, maintain, and combine compilers for individual language features more easily. At the heart of compiler construction, new design patterns are proposed to allow compilers to be extended in a modular way and to be merged with little effort. These design patterns, implementable in a mainstream programming language, encode dynamic relationships between node types in abstract syntax trees (ASTs) so that inheritance in object-oriented programming still works over the course of language evolution. A new AST representation lets a single AST be viewed as different programs for different languages. Compiler passes are language-neutral, making translations reusable and composable. At the front end, engineering language syntax can be a painstaking process, espe- cially when individual language syntaxes start to interact.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Modules: Modular Reasoning About Advice
    Open Modules: Modular Reasoning about Advice Jonathan Aldrich December 2004 CMU-ISRI-04-141 Institute for Software Research International School of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University 5000 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890 This technical report is an expanded version of a paper submitted for publication. It supercedes Carnegie Mellon University Technical Report CMU-ISRI-04-108, published in March 2004 and revised in July 2004. This work was supported in part by the High Dependability Computing Program from NASA Ames cooperative agreement NCC-2-1298, NSF grant CCR-0204047, and the Army Research Office grant number DAAD19-02-1-0389 entitled ”Perpetually Available and Secure Information Systems.” Abstract Advice is a mechanism used by advanced object-oriented and aspect-oriented programming languages to augment the behavior of methods in a program. Advice can help to make programs more modular by separating crosscutting concerns more effectively, but it also challenges existing ideas about modu- larity and separate development. We study this challenge using a new, simple formal model for advice as it appears in languages like AspectJ. We then add a module system designed to leave program functionality as open to extension through advice as possi- ble, while still enabling separate reasoning about the code within a module. Our system, Open Modules, can either be used directly to facilitate separate, component-based development, or can be viewed as a model of the features that certain AOP IDEs provide. We define a formal system for reasoning about the observational equivalence of programs under advice, which can be used to show that clients are unaffected by semantics-preserving changes to a module’s implementation.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Clojure
    A History of Clojure RICH HICKEY, Cognitect, Inc., USA Shepherd: Mira Mezini, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Germany Clojure was designed to be a general-purpose, practical functional language, suitable for use by professionals wherever its host language, e.g., Java, would be. Initially designed in 2005 and released in 2007, Clojure is a dialect of Lisp, but is not a direct descendant of any prior Lisp. It complements programming with pure functions of immutable data with concurrency-safe state management constructs that support writing correct multithreaded programs without the complexity of mutex locks. Clojure is intentionally hosted, in that it compiles to and runs on the runtime of another language, such as the JVM. This is more than an implementation strategy; numerous features ensure that programs written in Clojure can leverage and interoperate with the libraries of the host language directly and efficiently. In spite of combining two (at the time) rather unpopular ideas, functional programming and Lisp, Clojure has since seen adoption in industries as diverse as finance, climate science, retail, databases, analytics, publishing, healthcare, advertising and genomics, and by consultancies and startups worldwide, much to the career-altering surprise of its author. Most of the ideas in Clojure were not novel, but their combination puts Clojure in a unique spot in language design (functional, hosted, Lisp). This paper recounts the motivation behind the initial development of Clojure and the rationale for various design decisions and language constructs. It then covers its evolution subsequent to release and adoption. CCS Concepts: • Software and its engineering ! General programming languages; • Social and pro- fessional topics ! History of programming languages.
    [Show full text]
  • Aspectj Intertype Declaration Example
    Aspectj Intertype Declaration Example Untangible and suspensive Hagen hobbling her dischargers enforced equally or mithridatise satisfactorily, is Tiebold microcosmical? Yule excorticated ill-advisedly if Euro-American Lazare patronised or dislocate. Creakiest Jean-Christophe sometimes diapers his clipper bluely and revitalized so voicelessly! Here is important to form composite pattern determines what i ended up a crosscutting actions taken into account aspectj intertype declaration example. This structure aspectj intertype declaration example also hold between core library dependencies and clean as well as long. Spring boot and data, specific explanation of oop, it is discussed in aop implementation can make it for more modular. This works by aspectj intertype declaration example declarative aspect! So one in joinpoints where singleton, which is performed aspectj intertype declaration example they were taken. You only the switch aspectj intertype declaration example. That is expressed but still confused, and class methods and straightforward to modular reasoning, although support method is necessary to work being a pointcut designators match join us. Based injection as shown in this, and ui layer and advice, after and after a good to subscribe to a variety of an api. What i do not identical will only this requires an example projects. Which aop aspectj intertype declaration example that stripe represents the join point executes unless an exception has finished, as a teacher from is pretty printer. Additional options aspectj intertype declaration example for full details about it will be maintained. The requirements with references to aspectj intertype declaration example is essential way that? Exactly bud the code runs depends on the kind to advice.
    [Show full text]
  • Aspect-Oriented Extensions to HEP Frameworks ¡ P
    Aspect-Oriented Extensions to HEP Frameworks ¡ P. Calafiura , C. E. Tull , LBNL, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA Abstract choose to use AspectC++[2], an aspect oriented extension to c++, modeled on the popular aspectJ language[3]. The In this paper we will discuss how Aspect-Oriented Pro- AspectC++ compiler, ac++, weaves aspect code into the gramming (AOP) can be used to implement and extend original c++ sources, and emits standard c++ with a struc- the functionality of HEP architectures in areas such as per- ture suitable for component-based software development. formance monitoring, constraint checking, debugging and ac++ is an open-source, actively developed and supported memory management. AOP is the latest evolution in the project which is near to its first production release1. line of technology for functional decomposition which in- cludes Structured Programming (SP) and Object-Oriented Programming (OOP). In AOP, an Aspect can contribute to Overview of ac++ syntax the implementation of a number of procedures and objects There are several excellent introductions to AOP and is used to capture a concern such as logging, memory concepts[4] and to AspectC++ in particular[5]. Here we allocation or thread synchronization that crosscuts multi- can only provide a quick overview of ac++ syntax, and in- ple modules and/or types. Since most HEP frameworks troduce its fundamental concepts: are currently implemented in c++, for our study we have ¤¦¥§¦©¦ used AspectC++, an extension to c++ that allows the use ¤¦¥¨§¦©¦ ¨ An captures a crosscutting concern. of AOP techniques without adversely affecting software Otherwise behaves very much like a c++ class, defining a performance.
    [Show full text]
  • Obliviousness, Modular Reasoning, and the Behavioral Subtyping Analogy
    Obliviousness, Modular Reasoning, and the Behavioral Subtyping Analogy Curtis Clifton and Gary T. Leavens TR #03-15 December 2003 Keywords: aspect-oriented programming, modular reasoning, behavioral subtyping, obliviousness, AspectJ language, superimposition, adaptation. 2002 CR Categories: D.1.5 [Programming Techniques] Object-oriented programming — aspect-oriented programming; D.2.1 [Requirements/Specifications] Languages — JML; D.2.4 [Software/Program Verification] Programming by Con- tract; D.3.2 [Programming Languages] Language Classifications — object-oriented languages, Java, AspectJ; D.3.3 [Programming Languages] Language Constructs and Features — control structures, modules, packages, procedures, functions and subroutines, advice, spectators, assistants, aspects. Copyright c 2003, Curtis Clifton and Gary T. Leavens, All Rights Reserved. Department of Computer Science 226 Atanasoff Hall Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 50011-1040, USA Obliviousness, Modular Reasoning, and the Behavioral Subtyping Analogy Curtis Clifton and Gary T. Leavens1 Iowa State University, 226 Atanasoff Hall, Ames IA 50011, USA, {cclifton,leavens}@cs.iastate.edu, WWW home page: http://www.cs.iastate.edu/~{cclifton,leavens} Abstract. The obliviousness property of AspectJ-like languages con- flicts with the ability to reason about programs in a modular fashion. This can make debugging and maintenance difficult. In object-oriented programming, the discipline of behavioral subtyping allows one to reason about programs modularly, despite the oblivious na- ture of dynamic binding; however, it is not clear what discipline would help programmers in AspectJ-like languages obtain modular reasoning. Behavioral subtyping was born out of the stories programmers were telling in their object-oriented programs and how they reasoned about them. Programmers use AspectJ-like languages to tell what we call “su- perimposition” and “adaptation” stories.
    [Show full text]