Most type systems are agnostic regarding the evaluation strategy for the underlying languages, with the value restriction for ML which is absent in Haskell as a notable exception. As type systems become more precise, however, detailed properties of the operational semantics may become visible because properties captured by the types may be sound under one strategy but not the other. For example, intersection types distinguish between call-by-name and call-by-value functions, because the subtyping law (A → B) ∩ (A → C) ≤ A → (B ∩ C) is unsound for the latter in the presence of effects. In this paper we develop a proof-theoretic framework for analyzing the interaction of types with evaluation order, based on the notion of polarity. Polarity was discovered through linear logic, but we propose a fresh origin in Dummett’s program of justifying the logical laws through alternative verificationist or pragmatist “meaning-theories”, which include a bias towards either introduction or elimination rules. We revisit Dummett’s analysis using the tools of Martin-Löf’s judgmental method, and then show how to extend it to a unified polarized logic, with Girard’s “shift ” connectives acting as intermediaries. This logic safely combines intuitionistic and dual intuitionistic reasoning principles, while simultaneously admitting a focusing interpretation for the classical sequent calculus. Then, by applying the Curry-Howard isomorphism to polarized logic, we obtain a single programming language in which evaluation order is reflected at the level of types. Different logical notions correspond directly to natural programming constructs, such as pattern-matching, explicit substitutions, values and call-by-value continuations. We give examples demonstrating the expressiveness of the language and type system, and prove a basic but modular type safety result. We conclude with a brief discussion of extensions to the language with additional effects and types, and sketch the sort of explanation this can provide for operationally-sensitive typing phenomena. 1

We present a possible world semantics for a call-by-value higherorder programming language with impredicative polymorphism, general references, and recursive types. The model is one of the first relationally parametric models of a programming language with all these features. To model impredicative polymorphism we define the semantics of types via parameterized (world-indexed) logical relations over a universal domain. It is well-known that it is non-trivial to show the existence of logical relations in the presence of recursive types. Here the problems are exacerbated because of general references. We explain what the problems are and present our solution, which makes use of a novel approach to modeling references. We prove that the resulting semantics is adequate with respect to a standard operational semantics and include simple examples of reasoning about contextual equivalence via parametricity.

We present a pair of reasoning principles, definition and proof by rigid induction, which can be seen as proper generalizations of lazy-datatype induction to monadic effects other than partiality. We further show how these principles can be integrated into logical-relations arguments, and obtain as a particular instance a general and principled proof that the success-stream and failurecontinuation models of backtracking are equivalent. As another application, we present a monadic model of general search trees, not necessarily traversed depth-first. The results are applicable to both lazy and eager languages, and we emphasize this by presenting most examples in both Haskell and SML.

In functional programming, monadic characterizations of computational effects are normally understood denotationally: they describe how an effectful program can be systematically expanded or translated into a larger, pure program, which can then be evaluated according to an effect-free semantics. Any effect-specific operations expressible in the monad are also given purely functional definitions, but these definitions are only directly executable in the context of an already translated program. This approach thus takes an inherently Church-style view of effects: the nominal meaning of every effectful term in the program depends crucially on its type. We present here a complementary, operational view of monadic effects, in which an effect definition directly induces an imperative behavior of the new operations expressible in the monad. This behavior is formalized as additional operational rules for only the new constructs; it does not require any structural changes to the evaluation judgment. Specifically, we give a small-step operational semantics of a prototypical functional language supporting programmer-definable, layered effects, and show how this semantics naturally supports reasoning by familiar syntactic techniques, such as showing soundness of a Curry-style effect-type system by the progress+preservation method.

Free theorems are a charm, allowing the derivation of useful statements about programs from their (polymorphic) types alone. We show how to reap such theorems not only from polymorphism over ordinary types, but also from polymorphism over type constructors restricted by class constraints. Our prime application area is that of monads, which form the probably most popular type constructor class of Haskell. To demonstrate the broader scope, we also deal with a transparent way of introducing difference lists into a program, endowed with a neat and general correctness proof.

We lay operational foundations for effect handlers. Introduced by Plotkin and Pretnar, effect handlers are a novel programming construct that generalises exception handlers, handling a range of computational effects, such as I/O, state, and nondeterminism. We propose a small-step structural operational semantics for a higher-order calculus of effect handlers, along with a sound type and effect system. We explore two alternative effect handler implementation techniques: free monads, and delimited continuations. Finally, we show that Filinski’s monadic reflection can be straightforwardly simulated by effect handlers. 1.