A module system ought to enable assembly-line programming using separate compilation and an expressive linking language. Separate compilation allows programmers to develop parts of a program independently. A linking language gives programmers precise control over the assembly of parts into a whole. This paper presents models of program units, MzScheme's module language for assembly-line programming. Units support separate compilation, independent module reuse, cyclic dependencies, hierarchical structuring, and dynamic linking. The models explain how to integrate units with untyped and typed languages such as Scheme and ML.

Languages that support abstraction and modular structure, such as Standard ML, Modula, Ada, and (more or less) C++, may have deeply nested dependency hierarchies among source files. In ML the problem is particularly severe because ML's powerful parameterized module (functor) facility entails dependencies among implementation modules, not just among interfaces.

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.

A simple implementation of an SML-like module system is presented as a module parameterized by a base language and its type-checker. This implementation is useful both as a detailed tutorial on the Harper-Lillibridge-Leroy module system and its implementation, and as a constructive demonstration of the applicability of that module system to a wide range of programming languages.

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 main ideas underlying work on the model-theoretic foundations of algebraic specification and formal program development are presented in an informal way. An attempt is made to offer an overall view, rather than new results, and to focus on the basic motivation behind the technicalities presented elsewhere.

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...