Mon Jan 24 06:24:22 CET 2011

```On January 21, 2011 14:01:36 Ryan Ingram wrote:
> Interesting little paper, Tyson.

Hi Ryan,

Thanks for comments and kind words.

> I think what a programmer actually wants from ambiguity resolution is
> something *predictable*; C++'s system is definitely stretching the
> boundaries of predictability, but any case where I have to break out a
> calculator to decide whether the compiler is going to choose
> specification A or specification B for my program seems like a
> failure.  I'd much rather the solution wasn't always 'the most
> probable' but at least was easy for me to figure out without thinking
> too hard.

I think you really hit the nail on the head there.  To be useful at all, it is
absolutely critical that you don't have to reach for your calculator.

Fortunately I believe this is the case.  The basic result of the paper was
that assuming

- self-similarity (functional programming) and
- finite-length (typed programs)

you get

p(n) = 1 / 2^{2n-1)

as the probability of a specific shape composed of n elementary components.

Note that the measure is defined on the shape: the way elementary types are
composed, not what they are.  Double and Char are indistinguishable from a
shapes perspective, Int -> Double -> Char and (Int -> Double) -> Char are not.

An example of the probabilities give same types (shapes) would then be

Double: p(1) = 1/2  (elementary components: Double)
Char: p(1) = 1/2  (elementary components: Char)
[Int]: p(2) = 1/8  (elementary components: [], Int)
[Char] -> IO (): p(5) = 1/512  (elementary components: [], Char, ->, IO, ())

As p(n) is monotonically decreasing function in n, the more elementary types
the shape is composed of, the less probable it is.

I really don't think there could be a much more pleasing result in terms of a
predictable measure.  It is very simple, and I believe it corresponds well to
our intuition.  The more stuff in a type, the more complex it is.

It may seem strange to have went to such ends for such a simple result, but
that is just because these simple examples don't show the depth.  Specifically

- we gained the ability to encode the intuition into a piece of software, and
- we can now go beyond where our intuition starts to break down.

To see this last point, consider the shapes represented by Double vs Double ->
Int.  The formulation says the former shape will arise more frequently in
programs, and I imagine we agree.  But are we more likely to see the shape

(a -> b - > a) -> a -> [b] -> a

where a and b are place holders for any internal shape, or

Int -> Char -> Int

Suddenly it is not so easy for us.  The former is a more complex composition,
but it is also a less rigid composition.  The formulation has no such problem.

> The goal is to easily know when I have to manually specify ambiguity
> resolution and when I can trust the compiler to do it for me.  I
> didn't completely follow the math in your paper, so maybe it turns out
> simply if it was implemented, but it wasn't clear to me.  At the
> least, I think you should add examples of the types of ambiguity
> resolution you'd like the compiler to figure out and what your
> probability measure chooses as the correct answer in each case.

The specific ambiguous situation I was looking at resolving when I came up with
the framework was figuring out what application operator to use.

Consider various applications incorporating a computation context c (e.g., [])

\f -> f :: (a -> b) -> a -> b

\f -> fmap f :: (a -> b) -> c a -> c b

\f -> f . pure :: (c a -> b) -> a -> b

\f -> apply f :: c (a -> b) -> c a -> c b
\f -> apply f . pure :: c (a -> b) -> (a -> c b)
\f -> apply f . pure . pure :: c (c a -> b)) -> a -> c b

\f -> join . func f :: (a -> c b) -> c a -> c b
\f -> join . apply f :: c (a -> c b) -> c a -> c b
\f -> join . apply f . pure :: c (a -> c b) -> a -> c b
\f -> join . apply f . pure . pure :: c (ca -> cb) -> a -> c b

where I've listed them in order of increasing structure requirements on c (the
bottom four requiring a monad, the prior three require applicative, etc.)

In any one situation, more than one application may be possible (such as the
"under", "over", "state", "wear" example mentioned by Conor).  I want a
rigorous argument for ordering these to follow the least surprise principal.

the framework, and didn't want to pigeon hole it to this specific application.

Cheers!  -Tyson
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.