The design of a module system for constructing and main- taining large programs is a difficult task that raises a number of theoretical and practical issues. A fundamental issue is the management of the flow of information between program units at compile time via the notion of an interface. Experience has shown that fully opaque interfaces are awkward to use in practice since too much information is hidden, and that fully transparent interfaces lead to excessive interdependencies, creating problems for maintenance and separate compilation. The "sharing" specifications of Standard ML address this issue by allowing the programmer to specify equational relationships between types in separate modules, but are not expressive enough to allow the programmer com- plete control over the propagation of type information be- tween modules.

This paper presents a variant of the SML module system that introduces a strict distinction between abstract types and manifest types (types whose de nitions are part of the module speci cation), while retaining most of the expressive power of the SML module system. The resulting module system provides much better support for separate compilation. 1

Module mechanisms have received considerable theoretical attention, but the associated concepts of separate compilation and linking have not been emphasized. Anomalous module systems have emerged in functional and object-oriented programming where software components are not separately typecheckable and compilable. In this paper we provide a context where linking can be studied, and separate compilability can be formally stated and checked. We propose a framework where each module is separately compiled to a self-contained entity called a linkset ; we show that separately compiled, compatible modules can be safely linked together.

There exists an identifiable programming style based on the widespread use of type information handled through mechanical typechecking techniques. This typeful programming style is in a sense independent of the language it is embedded in; it adapts equally well to functional, imperative, object-oriented, and algebraic programming, and it is not incompatible with relational and concurrent programming. The main purpose of this paper is to show how typeful programming is best supported by sophisticated type systems, and how these systems can help in clarifying programming issues and in adding power and regularity to languages. We start with an introduction to the notions of types, subtypes and polymorphism. Then we introduce a general framework, derived in part from constructive logic, into which most of the known type systems can be accommodated and extended. The main part of the paper shows how this framework can be adapted systematically to cope with actual programming constructs. For concreteness we describe a particular programming language with advanced features; the emphasis here is on the combination of subtyping and polymorphism. We then discuss how typing concepts apply to large programs, made of collections of modules, and very large programs, made of collections of large programs. We also sketch how typing applies to system programming; an area which by nature escapes rigid typing. In summary, we compare the most common programming styles, suggesting that many of them are compatible with, and benefit from, a typeful discipline.

We present a variant of the Standard ML module system where parameterized abstract types (i.e. functors returning generative types) map provably equal arguments to compatible abstract types, instead of generating distinct types at each application as in Standard ML. This extension solves the full transparency problem (how to give syntactic signatures for higher-order functors that express exactly their propagation of type equations), and also provides better support for non-closed code fragments.

We present a type theory for higher-order modules that accounts for many central issues in module system design, including translucency, applicativity, generativity, and modules as first-class values. Our type system harmonizes design elements from previous work, resulting in a simple, economical account of modular programming. The main unifying principle is the treatment of abstraction mechanisms as computational effects. Our language is the first to provide a complete and practical formalization of all of these critical issues in module system design.

Module systems are a powerful, practical tool for managing the complexity of large software systems. Previous attempts to formulate a type-theoretic foundation for modular programming have been based on existential, dependent, or manifest types. These approaches can be distinguished by their use of different quantifiers to package the operations that a module exports together with appropriate implementation types. In each case, the underlying type theory is simple and elegant, but significant and sometimes complex extensions are needed to account for features that are im- portant in practical systems, such as separate compilation and propagation of type information between modules. This paper presents a simple type-theoretic fi'amework for modular programming using parameterized signatmes. The use of quantifiers is treated as a necessary, but independent concern. Using familiar concepts of polymorphism, the resulting module system is easy to understaud and admits true separate compilation. It is also very powerful, supporting high-order, polymorphic, and first-class modules without further extension.

The programming language Standard ML is an amalgam of two, largely orthogonal, languages. The Core language expresses details of algorithms and data structures. The Modules language expresses the modular architecture of a software system. Both languages are statically typed, with their static and dynamic semantics specified by a formal definition.

This paper presents a purely syntactic account of type generativity and sharing -- two key mechanisms in the SML module system -- and shows its equivalence with the traditional stamp-based description of these mechanisms. This syntactic description recasts the SML module system in a more abstract, type-theoretic framework.

The ease of understanding, maintaining, and developing a large program depends crucially on how it is divided up into modules. The possible ways a program can be divided are constrained by the available modular programming facilities ("module system") of the programming language being used. Experience with the Standard-ML module system has shown the usefulness of functions mapping modules to modules and modules with module subcomponents. For example, functions over modules permit abstract data types (ADTs) to be parameterized by other ADTs, and submodules permit modules to be organized hierarchically. Module systems with such facilities are called higher-order, by analogy with higher-order functions. Previous higher-order module systems can be classified as either opaque or transparent. Opaque systems totally obscure information about the identity of type components of modules, often resulting in overly abstract types. This loss of type identities precludes most interesting uses of hi...