DOCSLIB.ORG

Typed Closure Conversion

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Typed Closure Conversion Typ ed Closure Conversion Yasuhiko Minamide Greg Morrisett Rob ert Harp er Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences Scho ol of Computer Science Scho ol of Computer Science Kyoto University Carnegie Mellon University Carnegie Mellon University Kyoto 606{01, Japan Pittsburgh, PA 15213{3891 Pittsburgh, PA 15213{3891 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ronments and is thus exploited to go o d advantage byShao Abstract and App el [31] and Wand and Steckler [38]. We study the typing prop erties of closureconversion for Most accounts consider closure conversion as a transfor- simply-typ ed and p olymorphic -calculi . Unlikemostac- mation to untyped terms, irresp ective of whether or not the counts of closure conversion, which only treat the untyp ed source term is typ ed [35, 16, 2, 38]. This is adequate for com- -calculus, we translate well-typ ed source programs to well- pilers that make little or no use of typ es in the backendor typ ed target programs. This allows later compiler phases to at run time. However, when compiling typ ed languages, it is take advantage of typ es for representation analysis and tag- often advantageous to propagate typ e information through free garbage collection, and it facilitates correctness pro ofs. each stage of the compiler, and to make use of typ es at link Our account of closure conversion for the simply-typ ed lan- or even run time. For example, Leroy's representation analy- guage takes advantage of a simple mo del of ob jects bymap- sis [18, 32 ] uses typ es to determine pro cedure calling conven- ping closures to existentials. Closure conversion for the tions, and Ohori's record compilation [26] uses a representa- p olymorphic language requires additional typ e machinery, tion of typ es at run time to access comp onents of a record. namely translucency in the style of Harp er and Lillibri dg e's In current compilers, these phases must o ccur before closure mo dule calculus, to express the typ e of a closure. conversion b ecause the output of closure conversion is un- typ ed. Compilation strategies for p olymorphic languages, such as those prop osed by Morrison et al. [25] and Harp er 1 Intro duction and Morrisett [13], rely on analyzing typ es at run time to supp ort unboxed representations and non-parametric op er- Closureconversion [30, 35 , 6, 16, 15, 2, 38, 8] is a program ators, including printing and structural equality.Tag-free transformation that achieves a separation b etween co de and garbage collection [4, 37, 24 ] for b oth monomorphic and data. Functions with free variables are replaced bycode p olymorphic programming languages also relies up on typ es abstracted on an extra environment parameter. Free vari- at run time to determine the size and the p ointers of ob- ables in the b o dy of the function are replaced by references jects. To supp ort any of these implementation strategies, it to the environment. The abstracted co de is \partially ap- is necessary to propagate typ e information through closure plied" to an explicitly constructed environmentproviding conversion and into the generated co de. Consequently,the the bindings for these variables. This \partial application" purp ose of this pap er is to showhow closure conversion can of the co de to its environment is in fact susp ended until the b e formulated as a type-preserving transform. function is actually applied to its argument; the susp ended We are therefore interested in type-basedtransformations application is called a \closure", a data structure containing as a basis for compiling p olymorphic languages. The crucial pure co de and a representation of its environment. idea is to de ne a compiler as a series of transformations on A critical decision in closure conversion is the choice of b oth the program and its typ e, p ossibly relying on typ e in- representation of the environment as a data structure | formation to guide the transformation itself. Each stage of for example, whether to use a \ at", \linked", or hybrid the compiler is thus viewed as a typ e-preserving translation representation. This decision is in uenced by a desire to between typ ed intermediate languages. Examples of such minimize closure creation time, the space consumed byan translations are given by Leroy [18], Ohori [26], Harp er and environment, and the time to access a given variable in an Lillibri dge [9], and Harp er and Morrisett [13]. In addition environment [38, 31]. An imp ortant prop erty of closure con- to the practical advantages of propagating typ e information version is that the representation of the environmentispri- through the stages of a compiler, typ e-directed translation vate to the closure, and is not visible from the outside. This also facilitates correctness pro ofs by de ning the invariants a ords considerable exibili ty in the representation of envi- of the transformation as a typ e-indexed family of logical re- This researchwas p erformed while the author was visiting the lations [36, 7, 28, 33, 34]. Fox Pro ject at Carnegie Mellon University. We describ e closure conversion in two stages. The rst stage, abstract closureconversion,isa typ e-based transla- tion from the source language into a target language with To app ear POPL '96. explicit closures. The translation is describ ed as a deductive system in which the representation of the environmentmay be chosen indep endently for each closure. In this wayvari- ous environment representations, such as those used bythe p ossible to nd and eliminate compiler bugs since we can au- CAM [6] and the FAM [5], as wellashybrid strategies, such tomatically typ e-check the output of each compiler phase. as those suggested by Shao and App el [31] can b e explained Some compilers for ML based on representation analysis in a uniform framework. [18, 32] also propagate typ e information through closure The second stage, closurerepresentation,isa typ e-based conversion. However, their information is not enough to translation in which the implementation of closures is de- typ e-check the resulting programs b ecause p olymorphism termined. The main idea is to represent closures as objects is implemented by co ercions and all p olymorphic typ es are (in contrast to the prop osed representation of objects as clo- represented byasingletyp e. sures [29]). Following Pierce and Turner [27] we consider The remainder of this pap er is organized as follows: In ob jects to b e packages of existential typ e consisting of a sin- Section 2, we giveanoverview of closure conversion and gle metho d (the co de part of the closure) together with a the typing issues involved for the simply-typ ed -calculus. single instance variable (the environment part) whose typ e In Section 3, we provide the details of our typ e-preserving (the environment representation) is held abstract. This cap- transform for the simply-typ ed case. In Section 4, wegivean tures the critical \privacy" prop ertyofenvironment repre- overview of closure conversion and the typing issues involved sentations for closures. In the simply-typ ed case wemake for the predicative fragment of the p olymorphic -calculus. direct use of Pierce and Turner's mo del of ob jects. In the The formal development of this conversion is given in Section p olymorphic case wemust in addition exploit the notion of 5. translucency [10] (or manifest types [19]) to express the typ e of a p olymorphic closure. 2 Overview of Simply-Typ ed Closure Conversion The correctness of b oth the abstract closure conversion and the closure representation stages are proved using the The main ideas of closure conversion may b e illustrated by metho d of logical relations. The main idea is to de ne a considering the following ML program: typ e-indexed family of simulation relations that establish a let val x = 1 corresp ondence b etween the source and target terms of the val y = 2 translation. Once a suitable system of relations has b een val z = 3 de ned, it is relatively straightforward to proveby induction val f = w. x + y + w on the de nition of the compilation relation that the source in and target of the translation are related, from whichwemay f 100 conclude that a closed program and its compilation evaluate end to the same result. Due to a lack of space, the pro ofs of correctness are omitted here. However, full details are given The function f contains free variables x and y,butnotz. in the companion technical rep ort [22]. Wemay eliminate the references to these variables from the Closure conversion is discussed in descriptions of various body of f by abstracting on an environment env, and replac- functional language compilers [35, 16 , 3, 2 , 31]. It is closely ing x and y by references to the environment. In comp en- related to -lifting [14] in that it eliminates free variables in sation a suitable environmentcontaining the bindings for x the b o dies of -abstractions but di ers by making the rep- and y must b e passed to f b efore it is applied. This leads resentation of the environment explicit as a data structure. to the following translation: Making the environment explicit is imp ortant b ecause it ex- p oses environment construction and variable lo okup to an let val x = 1 optimizer. Furthermore, Shao and App el show that not all val y = 2 environment representations are \safe for space" [31], and val z = 3 thus cho osing a go o d environment representation is an im- val f = (env.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lecture 4. Higher-Order Functions Functional Programming
    Lecture 4. Higher-order functions Functional Programming [Faculty of Science Information and Computing Sciences] 0 I function call and return as only control-flow primitive I no loops, break, continue, goto I (almost) unique types I no inheritance hell I high-level declarative data-structures I no explicit reference-based data structures Goal of typed purely functional programming Keep programs easy to reason about by I data-flow only through function arguments and return values I no hidden data-flow through mutable variables/state [Faculty of Science Information and Computing Sciences] 1 I (almost) unique types I no inheritance hell I high-level declarative data-structures I no explicit reference-based data structures Goal of typed purely functional programming Keep programs easy to reason about by I data-flow only through function arguments and return values I no hidden data-flow through mutable variables/state I function call and return as only control-flow primitive I no loops, break, continue, goto [Faculty of Science Information and Computing Sciences] 1 I high-level declarative data-structures I no explicit reference-based data structures Goal of typed purely functional programming Keep programs easy to reason about by I data-flow only through function arguments and return values I no hidden data-flow through mutable variables/state I function call and return as only control-flow primitive I no loops, break, continue, goto I (almost) unique types I no inheritance hell [Faculty of Science Information and Computing Sciences] 1 Goal
    [Show full text]
  • Higher-Order Functions 15-150: Principles of Functional Programming – Lecture 13
    Higher-order Functions 15-150: Principles of Functional Programming { Lecture 13 Giselle Reis By now you might feel like you have a pretty good idea of what is going on in functional program- ming, but in reality we have used only a fragment of the language. In this lecture we see what more we can do and what gives the name functional to this paradigm. Let's take a step back and look at ML's typing system: we have basic types (such as int, string, etc.), tuples of types (t*t' ) and functions of a type to a type (t ->t' ). In a grammar style (where α is a basic type): τ ::= α j τ ∗ τ j τ ! τ What types allowed by this grammar have we not used so far? Well, we could, for instance, have a function below a tuple. Or even a function within a function, couldn't we? The following are completely valid types: int*(int -> int) int ->(int -> int) (int -> int) -> int The first one is a pair in which the first element is an integer and the second one is a function from integers to integers. The second one is a function from integers to functions (which have type int -> int). The third type is a function from functions to integers. The two last types are examples of higher-order functions1, i.e., a function which: • receives a function as a parameter; or • returns a function. Functions can be used like any other value. They are first-class citizens. Maybe this seems strange at first, but I am sure you have used higher-order functions before without noticing it.
    [Show full text]
  • Clojure, Given the Pun on Closure, Representing Anything Specific
    dynamic, functional programming for the JVM “It (the logo) was designed by my brother, Tom Hickey. “It I wanted to involve c (c#), l (lisp) and j (java). I don't think we ever really discussed the colors Once I came up with Clojure, given the pun on closure, representing anything specific. I always vaguely the available domains and vast emptiness of the thought of them as earth and sky.” - Rich Hickey googlespace, it was an easy decision..” - Rich Hickey Mark Volkmann [email protected] Functional Programming (FP) In the spirit of saying OO is is ... encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism ... • Pure Functions • produce results that only depend on inputs, not any global state • do not have side effects such as Real applications need some changing global state, file I/O or database updates side effects, but they should be clearly identified and isolated. • First Class Functions • can be held in variables • can be passed to and returned from other functions • Higher Order Functions • functions that do one or both of these: • accept other functions as arguments and execute them zero or more times • return another function 2 ... FP is ... Closures • main use is to pass • special functions that retain access to variables a block of code that were in their scope when the closure was created to a function • Partial Application • ability to create new functions from existing ones that take fewer arguments • Currying • transforming a function of n arguments into a chain of n one argument functions • Continuations ability to save execution state and return to it later think browser • back button 3 ..
    [Show full text]
  • Topic 6: Partial Application, Function Composition and Type Classes
    Recommended Exercises and Readings Topic 6: Partial Application, • From Haskell: The craft of functional programming (3rd Ed.) Function Composition and Type • Exercises: • 11.11, 11.12 Classes • 12.30, 12.31, 12.32, 12.33, 12.34, 12.35 • 13.1, 13.2, 13.3, 13.4, 13.7, 13.8, 13.9, 13.11 • If you have time: 12.37, 12.38, 12.39, 12.40, 12.41, 12.42 • Readings: • Chapter 11.3, and 11.4 • Chapter 12.5 • Chapter 13.1, 13.2, 13.3 and 13.4 1 2 Functional Forms Curried and Uncurried Forms • The parameters to a function can be viewed in two different ways • Uncurried form • As a single combined unit • Parameters are bundled into a tuple and passed as a group • All values are passed as one tuple • Can be used in Haskell • How we typically think about parameter passing in Java, C++, Python, Pascal, C#, … • Typically only when there is a specific need to do • As a sequence of values that are passed one at a time • As each value is passed, a new function is formed that requires one fewer parameters • Curried form than its predecessor • Parameters are passed to a function sequentially • How parameters are passed in Haskell • Standard form in Haskell • But it’s not a detail that we need to concentrate on except when we want to make use of it • Functions can be transformed from one form to the other 3 4 Curried and Uncurried Forms Curried and Uncurried Forms • A function in curried form • Why use curried form? • Permits partial application multiply :: Int ‐> Int ‐> Int • Standard way to define functions in Haskell multiply x y = x * y • A function of n+1
    [Show full text]
  • Functional Programming Lecture 1: Introduction
    Functional Programming Lecture 13: FP in the Real World Viliam Lisý Artificial Intelligence Center Department of Computer Science FEE, Czech Technical University in Prague [email protected] 1 Mixed paradigm languages Functional programming is great easy parallelism and concurrency referential transparency, encapsulation compact declarative code Imperative programming is great more convenient I/O better performance in certain tasks There is no reason not to combine paradigms 2 3 Source: Wikipedia 4 Scala Quite popular with industry Multi-paradigm language • simple parallelism/concurrency • able to build enterprise solutions Runs on JVM 5 Scala vs. Haskell • Adam Szlachta's slides 6 Is Java 8 a Functional Language? Based on: https://jlordiales.me/2014/11/01/overview-java-8/ Functional language first class functions higher order functions pure functions (referential transparency) recursion closures currying and partial application 7 First class functions Previously, you could pass only classes in Java File[] directories = new File(".").listFiles(new FileFilter() { @Override public boolean accept(File pathname) { return pathname.isDirectory(); } }); Java 8 has the concept of method reference File[] directories = new File(".").listFiles(File::isDirectory); 8 Lambdas Sometimes we want a single-purpose function File[] csvFiles = new File(".").listFiles(new FileFilter() { @Override public boolean accept(File pathname) { return pathname.getAbsolutePath().endsWith("csv"); } }); Java 8 has lambda functions for that File[] csvFiles = new File(".")
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Functional Programming with Haskell
    Notes on Functional Programming with Haskell H. Conrad Cunningham [email protected] Multiparadigm Software Architecture Group Department of Computer and Information Science University of Mississippi 201 Weir Hall University, Mississippi 38677 USA Fall Semester 2014 Copyright c 1994, 1995, 1997, 2003, 2007, 2010, 2014 by H. Conrad Cunningham Permission to copy and use this document for educational or research purposes of a non-commercial nature is hereby granted provided that this copyright notice is retained on all copies. All other rights are reserved by the author. H. Conrad Cunningham, D.Sc. Professor and Chair Department of Computer and Information Science University of Mississippi 201 Weir Hall University, Mississippi 38677 USA [email protected] PREFACE TO 1995 EDITION I wrote this set of lecture notes for use in the course Functional Programming (CSCI 555) that I teach in the Department of Computer and Information Science at the Uni- versity of Mississippi. The course is open to advanced undergraduates and beginning graduate students. The first version of these notes were written as a part of my preparation for the fall semester 1993 offering of the course. This version reflects some restructuring and revision done for the fall 1994 offering of the course|or after completion of the class. For these classes, I used the following resources: Textbook { Richard Bird and Philip Wadler. Introduction to Functional Program- ming, Prentice Hall International, 1988 [2]. These notes more or less cover the material from chapters 1 through 6 plus selected material from chapters 7 through 9. Software { Gofer interpreter version 2.30 (2.28 in 1993) written by Mark P.
    [Show full text]
  • Currying and Partial Application and Other Tasty Closure Recipes
    CS 251 Fall 20192019 Principles of of Programming Programming Languages Languages λ Ben Wood Currying and Partial Application and other tasty closure recipes https://cs.wellesley.edu/~cs251/f19/ Currying and Partial Application 1 More idioms for closures • Function composition • Currying and partial application • Callbacks (e.g., reactive programming, later) • Functions as data representation (later) Currying and Partial Application 2 Function composition fun compose (f,g) = fn x => f (g x) Closure “remembers” f and g : ('b -> 'c) * ('a -> 'b) -> ('a -> 'c) REPL prints something equivalent ML standard library provides infix operator o fun sqrt_of_abs i = Math.sqrt(Real.fromInt(abs i)) fun sqrt_of_abs i = (Math.sqrt o Real.fromInt o abs) i val sqrt_of_abs = Math.sqrt o Real.fromInt o abs Right to left. Currying and Partial Application 3 Pipelines (left-to-right composition) “Pipelines” of functions are common in functional programming. infix |> fun x |> f = f x fun sqrt_of_abs i = i |> abs |> Real.fromInt |> Math.sqrt (F#, Microsoft's ML flavor, defines this by default) Currying and Partial Application 4 Currying • Every ML function takes exactly one argument • Previously encoded n arguments via one n-tuple • Another way: Take one argument and return a function that takes another argument and… – Called “currying” after logician Haskell Curry Currying and Partial Application 6 Example val sorted3 = fn x => fn y => fn z => z >= y andalso y >= x val t1 = ((sorted3 7) 9) 11 • Calling (sorted3 7) returns a closure with: – Code fn y => fn z
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture Notes on First-Class Functions
    Lecture Notes on First-Class Functions 15-411: Compiler Design Rob Simmons and Jan Hoffmann Lecture 25 Nov 29, 2016 1 Introduction In this lecture, we discuss two generalizations of C0: function pointers and nested, anonymous functions (lambdas). As a language feature, nested functions are a nat- ural extension of function pointers. However, because of the necessity of closures in the implementation of nested functions, the necessary implementation strategies are somewhat different. 2 Function pointers The C1 language includes a concept of function pointers, which are obtained from a function with the address-of operator &f. The dynamic semantics can treat &f as a new type of constant, which represents the memory address where the function f is stored. S; η ` (∗e)(e1; e2) B K −! S; η ` e B ((∗_)(e1; e2) ;K) S; η ` &f B ((∗_)(e1; e2);K) −! S; η ` e1 B (f(_; e2) ;K) Again, we only show the special case of evaluation function calls with two and zero arguments. After the second instruction, we continue evaluating the argu- ments to the function left-to-right and then call the function as in our previous dynamics. We do not have to model function pointers using a heap as we did for arrays and pointers since we are not able to change the functions that is stored at a given address. It is relatively straightforward to extend a language with function pointers, be- cause they are addresses. We can obtain that address at runtime by referring to the label as a constant. Any label labl in an assembly file represents an address in memory (since the program must be loaded into memory in order to run), and can LECTURE NOTES NOV 29, 2016 First-Class Functions L25.2 be treated as a constant by writing $labl.
    [Show full text]
  • Ml-Curry-4Up.Pdf
    CS 251 SpringFall 2019 2020 Principles of of Programming Programming Languages Languages Ben Wood More idioms for closures λ Ben Wood • Function composition Currying • Currying and partial application and Partial Application • Callbacks (e.g., reactive programming, later) and other tasty closure recipes • Functions as data representation (later) https://cs.wellesley.edu/~cs251/s20/ Currying and Partial Application 1 Currying and Partial Application 2 Function composition (right-to-left) Pipelines (left-to-right composition) fun compose (f,g) = fn x => f (g x) Common in functional programming. Closure “remembers” f and g : ('b -> 'c) * ('a -> 'b) -> ('a -> 'c) infix |> REPL prints something equivalent fun x |> f = f x fun sqrt_of_abs i = ML standard library provides infix operator o i |> abs |> Real.fromInt |> Math.sqrt fun sqrt_of_abs i = Math.sqrt(Real.fromInt(abs i)) fun sqrt_of_abs i = (Math.sqrt o Real.fromInt o abs) i val sqrt_of_abs = Math.sqrt o Real.fromInt o abs (F#, Microsoft's ML flavor, defines this by default) Right to left. Currying and Partial Application 3 Currying and Partial Application 4 Currying Example • Every ML function takes exactly one argument val sorted3 = fn x => fn y => fn z => z >= y andalso y >= x • Previously encoded n arguments via one n-tuple val t1 = ((sorted3 7) 9) 11 • Another way: 1. Calling (sorted3 7) returns closure #1 with: Take one argument and return a function that Code fn y => fn z => z >= y andalso y >= x takes another argument and… Environment: x ↦ 7 – Called “currying” after logician Haskell Curry 2. Calling closure #1 on 9 returns closure #2 with: Code fn z => z >= y andalso y >= x Environment: y ↦ 9, x ↦ 7 3.
    [Show full text]
  • CSE 341 : Programming Languages
    CSE 341 : Programming Languages Lecture 10 Closure Idioms Zach Tatlock Spring 2014 More idioms • We know the rule for lexical scope and function closures – Now what is it good for A partial but wide-ranging list: • Pass functions with private data to iterators: Done • Combine functions (e.g., composition) • Currying (multi-arg functions and partial application) • Callbacks (e.g., in reactive programming) • Implementing an ADT with a record of functions (optional) 2 Combine functions Canonical example is function composition: fun compose (f,g) = fn x => f (g x) • Creates a closure that “remembers” what f and g are bound to • Type ('b -> 'c) * ('a -> 'b) -> ('a -> 'c) but the REPL prints something equivalent • ML standard library provides this as infix operator o • Example (third version best): fun sqrt_of_abs i = Math.sqrt(Real.fromInt(abs i)) fun sqrt_of_abs i = (Math.sqrt o Real.fromInt o abs) i val sqrt_of_abs = Math.sqrt o Real.fromInt o abs 3 Left-to-right or right-to-left val sqrt_of_abs = Math.sqrt o Real.fromInt o abs As in math, function composition is “right to left” – “take absolute value, convert to real, and take square root” – “square root of the conversion to real of absolute value” “Pipelines” of functions are common in functional programming and many programmers prefer left-to-right – Can define our own infix operator – This one is very popular (and predefined) in F# infix |> fun x |> f = f x fun sqrt_of_abs i = i |> abs |> Real.fromInt |> Math.sqrt 4 Another example • “Backup function” fun backup1 (f,g) = fn x => case
    [Show full text]
  • Functional Programming at Work in Object-Oriented Programming
    Functional Programming at Work in Object-Oriented Programming Narbel version 2010 Narbel Functional Programming at Work in Object-Oriented Programming 1 A Claim about Programming Styles Claim: Adding functional programming capabilities to an object-oriented language leads to benefits in object-oriented programming design. Narbel Functional Programming at Work in Object-Oriented Programming 2 Existing Languages with a FP-OOP Mix Some old and less old languages with FP+OOP: For instance, Smalltalk, Common Lisp (CLOS). More recently, Python or Ruby. Notations: FP, Functional programming; OOP, Object-oriented programming, Narbel Functional Programming at Work in Object-Oriented Programming 3 FP techniques emulated in OOP Practices in OOP languages include emulations of FP techniques: C++ programmers: function pointers and overloadings of the () operator, i.e. “object-functions” or functors. Java programmers: anonymous classes and introspection/reflexion. Narbel Functional Programming at Work in Object-Oriented Programming 4 Existence of FP-OOP Comparison Points The idea of using FP to enrich OOP is old, see e.g. the discussions about the problem of the user-defined datatype extension: User-defined types and procedural data structures as complementary approaches to data abstraction. Reynolds. 1975. The Expression Problem. Wadler. 1998. Narbel Functional Programming at Work in Object-Oriented Programming 5 A Trend: FP Extensions for OO Languages A recent trend: to propose and include typed FP extensions in mainstream static OO languages. Extensions for C++ (see e.g. Laufer, Striegnitz, McNamara, Smaragdakis), and work in progress in the C++ standard committees. Java 7 expected to include FP constructs. C# offers FP constructs (even more in its 3.0 version).
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring Languages with Interpreters and Functional Programming Chapter 16
    Exploring Languages with Interpreters and Functional Programming Chapter 16 H. Conrad Cunningham 15 October 2018 Contents 16 Haskell Function Concepts 2 16.1 Chapter Introduction . .2 16.2 Strictness . .2 16.3 Currying and Partial Application . .3 16.4 Operator Sections . .4 16.5 Combinators . .5 16.6 Functional Composition . .7 16.7 Function Pipelines . .7 16.8 Lambda Expressions . .9 16.9 Application Operator $ ....................... 10 16.10Eager Evaluation Using seq and $! ................. 11 16.11What Next? . 12 16.12Exercises . 13 16.13Acknowledgements . 13 16.14References . 14 16.15Terms and Concepts . 14 Copyright (C) 2016, 2017, 2018, H. Conrad Cunningham Professor of Computer and Information Science University of Mississippi 211 Weir Hall P.O. Box 1848 University, MS 38677 (662) 915-5358 Browser Advisory: The HTML version of this textbook requires a browser that supports the display of MathML. A good choice as of October 2018 is a recent version of Firefox from Mozilla. 1 16 Haskell Function Concepts 16.1 Chapter Introduction The previous chapter introduced the concepts of first-class and higher-order functions and generalized common computational patterns to construct a library of useful higher-order functions to process lists. This chapter continues to examine those concepts and their implications for Haskell programming. It explores strictness, currying, partial application, com- binators, operator sections, functional composition, inline function definitions, evaluation strategies, and related methods. The Haskell module for this chapter is in FunctionConcepts.hs. 16.2 Strictness In the discussion of the fold functions, the previous chapter introduced the concept of strictness. In this section, we explore that in more depth.
    [Show full text]