Declare Your Language: Name Resolution

Eelco Visser
IN4303 Compiler Construction
TU Delft
September 2017
Declare Your Language
Chapter 5: Name Resolution

2
Source
Code
Editor
Parse
Abstract
Syntax
Tree
Type Check
Check that names are used correctly and that expressions are well-typed
Errors

4
Type checkers are algorithms that
check names and types in programs.
This paper introduces the NaBL Name
Binding Language, which supports the
declarative definition of the name
binding and scope rules of
programming languages through the
definition of scopes, declarations,
references, and imports associated.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36089-3_18
SLE 2012
Background

5
This paper introduces scope graphs as a
language-independent representation for
the binding information in programs.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46669-8_9
ESOP 2015

6
Separating type checking into
constraint generation and
constraint solving provides more
declarative definition of type
checkers. This paper introduces a
constraint language integrating
name resolution into constraint
resolution through scope graph
constraints.
This is the basis for the design of
the NaBL2 static semantics
specification language.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2847538.2847543
PEPM 2016

7
Documentation for NaBL2 at
the metaborg.org website.
http://www.metaborg.org/en/latest/source/langdev/meta/lang/nabl2/index.html

Name Resolution
Examples in Tiger
8

Name Resolution
9
let
var x : int := 0 + z
var y : int := x + 1
var z : int := x + y + 1
in
x + y + z
end

Name Resolution: Scope
10
let
var x : int := 0 + z // z not in scope
var y : int := x + 1
var z : int := x + y + 1
in
x + y + z
end

Name Resolution
11
let
function odd(x : int) : int =
if x > 0 then even(x - 1) else false
function even(x : int) : int =
if x > 0 then odd(x - 1) else true
in
even(34)
end
let
var x : int
in
even(34)
end

Mutually Recursive Functions should be Adjacent
12
let
in
even(34)
end
let
var x : int
in
even(34)
end

Name Resolution
13
let
type foo = int
function foo(x : foo) : foo = 3
var foo : foo := foo(4)
in foo(56) + foo
end

Name Resolution: Name Spaces
14
let
type foo = int
function foo(x : foo) : foo = 3
var foo : foo := foo(4)
in foo(56) + foo // both refer to the variable foo
end
Functions and variables are in the same namespace

Name Resolution
15
let
type point = {x : int, y : int}
var origin : point := point { x = 1, y = 2 }
in origin.x
end

Type Dependent Name Resolution
16
let
var origin : point := point { x = 1, y = 2 }
in origin.x
end
Resolving origin.x requires the type of origin

Name Resolution
17
let
type errpoint = {x : int, x : int}
var p : point
var e : errpoint
in
p := point{ x = 3, y = 3, z = "a" }
p := point{ x = 3 }
end

Name Resolution: Name Set Correspondence
18
let
type errpoint = {x : int, x : int}
var p : point
var e : errpoint
in
p := point{ x = 3, y = 3, z = "a" }
p := point{ x = 3 }
end
Field “y” not initialized Reference “z” not resolved
Duplicate Declaration of Field “x”

Name Resolution
19
let
type intlist = {hd : int, tl : intlist}
type tree = {key : int, children : treelist}
type treelist = {hd : tree, tl : treelist}
var l : intlist
var t : tree
var tl : treelist
in
l := intlist { hd = 3, tl = l };
t := tree {
key = 2,
children = treelist {
hd = tree{ key = 3, children = 3 },
tl = treelist{ }
}
};
t.children.hd.children := t.children
end

Name Resolution: Recursive Types
20
let
type intlist = {hd : int, tl : intlist}
type tree = {key : int, children : treelist}
type treelist = {hd : tree, tl : treelist}
var l : intlist
var t : tree
var tl : treelist
in
l := intlist { hd = 3, tl = l };
t := tree {
key = 2,
children = treelist {
hd = tree{ key = 3, children = 3 },
tl = treelist{ }
}
};
t.children.hd.children := t.children
end
type mismatch
Field "tl" not initialized
Field "hd" not initialized

Testing Name Resolution
22
test inner name [[
let type t = u
type u = int
var x: u := 0
in
x := 42 ;
let type [[u]] = t
var y: [[u]] := 0
in
y := 42
end
end
]] resolve #2 to #1
test outer name [[
let type t = u
type [[u]] = int
var x: [[u]] := 0
in
x := 42 ;
let type u = t
var y: u := 0
in
y := 42
end
end
]] resolve #2 to #1

Testing Type Checking
23
test variable reference [[
let type t = u
type u = int
var x: u := 0
in
x := 42 ;
let type u = t
var y: u := 0
in
y := [[x]]
end
end
]] run get-type to INT()
test integer constant [[
let type t = u
type u = int
var x: u := 0
in
x := 42 ;
let type u = t
var y: u := 0
in
y := [[42]]
end
end
]] run get-type to INT()

Testing Errors
24
test undefined variable [[
let type t = u
type u = int
var x: u := 0
in
x := 42 ;
let type u = t
var y: u := 0
in
y := [[z]]
end
end
]] 1 error
test type error [[
let type t = u
type u = string
var x: u := 0
in
x := 42 ;
let type u = t
var y: u := 0
in
y := [[x]]
end
end
]] 1 error

Test Corner Cases
25
context-free superset
language

Implementing a
Type Checker
26

Compute Type of Expression
27
rules
type-check :
Mod(e) -> t
where <type-check> e => t
type-check :
String(_) -> STRING()
type-check :
Int(_) -> INT()
type-check :
Plus(e1, e2) -> INT()
where
<type-check> e1 => INT();
<type-check> e2 => INT()
type-check :
Times(e1, e2) -> INT()
where
<type-check> e1 => INT();
<type-check> e2 => INT()
1 + 2 * 3
Mod(
Plus(Int("1"),
Times(Int("2"),
Int("3")))
)
INT()

Compute Type of Variable?
28
rules
type-check :
Let([VarDec(x, e)], e_body) -> t
where
<type-check> e => t_e;
<type-check> e_body => t
type-check :
Var(x) -> t // ???
let
var x := 1
in
x + 1
end
Mod(
Let(
[VarDec("x", Int("1"))]
, [Plus(Var("x"), Int("1"))]
)
)
?

Type Checking Variable Bindings
29
rules
type-check(|env) :
Let([VarDec(x, e)], e_body) -> t
where
<type-check(|env)> e => t_e;
<type-check(|[(x, t_e) | env])> e_body => t
type-check(|env) :
Var(x) -> t
where
<fetch(?(x, t))> env
let
var x := 1
in
x + 1
end
INT()
Store association between variable and type in type environment
Mod(
Let(
, [Plus(Var("x"), Int("1"))]
)
)

Pass Environment to Sub-Expressions
30
rules
type-check :
Mod(e) -> t
where <type-check(|[])> e => t
type-check(|env) :
String(_) -> STRING()
type-check(|env) :
Int(_) -> INT()
type-check(|env) :
Plus(e1, e2) -> INT()
where
<type-check(|env)> e1 => INT();
<type-check(|env)> e2 => INT()
type-check(|env) :
Times(e1, e2) -> INT()
where
<type-check(|env)> e1 => INT();
<type-check(|env)> e2 => INT()
let
var x := 1
in
x + 1
end
INT()
Mod(
Let(
, [Plus(Var("x"), Int("1"))]
)
)

Language = Set of Trees
Fun
AddArgDecl
VarRefId Int
“1”
VarDeclId
“x”
TXINT
“x”
Tree is a convenient interface for transforming programs

Language = Set of Graphs
Fun
AddArgDecl
VarRefId Int
“1”
VarDeclId TXINT
Edges from references to declarations

Fun
AddArgDecl
VarRefId Int
“1”
VarDeclId
“x”
TXINT
“x”
Language = Set of Graphs
Names are placeholders for edges in linear / tree representation

Variables
35
let function fact(n : int) : int =
if n < 1 then
1
else
n * fact(n - 1)
in
fact(10)
end

Function Calls
36
if n < 1 then
1
else
n * fact(n - 1)
in
fact(10)
end

37
function prettyprint(tree: tree) : string =
let
var output := ""
function write(s: string) =
output := concat(output, s)
function show(n: int, t: tree) =
let function indent(s: string) =
(write("n");
for i := 1 to n
do write(" ");
output := concat(output, s))
in if t = nil then indent(".")
else (indent(t.key);
show(n+1, t.left);
show(n+1, t.right))
end
in show(0, tree);
output
end
Nested Scopes
(Shadowing)

38
let
type point = {
x : int,
y : int
}
var origin := point {
x = 1,
y = 2
}
in
origin.x := 10;
origin := nil
end
Type References

39
let
type point = {
x : int,
y : int
}
x = 1,
y = 2
}
in
origin.x := 10;
origin := nil
end
Record Fields

40
let
type point = {
x : int,
y : int
}
x = 1,
y = 2
}
in
origin.x := 10;
origin := nil
end
Type Dependent

Name Resolution

Used in many diﬀerent language artifacts
• compiler

• interpreter

• semantics

• IDE

• refactoring

Binding rules encoded in many diﬀerent and ad-hoc ways
• symbol tables

• environments

• substitutions

No standard approach to formalization
• there is no BNF for name binding

No reuse of binding rules between artifacts
• how do we know substitution respects binding rules?
Name Resolution is Pervasive
41

Approaches to representing binding within an (extended) AST
• Numeric indexing [deBruijn72]

• Higher-order abstract syntax [PfenningElliott88]

• Nominal logic approaches [GabbayPitts02]

Support binding-sensitive AST manipulation
But
• Do not say how to resolve identiﬁers in the ﬁrst place!

• Can not represent ill-bound programs

• Tend to be biased towards lambda-like bindings
Representing Bound Programs
42

44
name binding
?
How to deﬁne the
rules of a language

45
name binding
?
What is the BNF of

DSLs for specifying binding structure of a (target) language
• Ott [Sewell+10]

• Romeo [StansiferWand14]

• Unbound [Weirich+11]

• Cαml [Pottier06]

• NaBL [Konat+12]

Generate code to do resolution and record results
What is the semantics of such a name binding language?
Name Binding Languages
46

NaBL Name Binding Language
binding rules // variables
Param(t, x) :
defines Variable x of type t
Let(bs, e) :
scopes Variable
Bind(t, x, e) :
defines Variable x of type t
Var(x) :
refers to Variable x
Declarative Name Binding and Scope Rules
Gabriël D. P. Konat, Lennart C. L. Kats, Guido Wachsmuth, Eelco Visser
SLE 2012
Declarative speciﬁcation
Abstracts from implementation
Incremental name resolution
But:
How to explain it to Coq?
What is the semantics of NaBL?

NaBL Name Binding Language
Declarative Name Binding and Scope Rules
Gabriël D. P. Konat, Lennart C. L. Kats, Guido Wachsmuth, Eelco Visser
SLE 2012
Especially:
What is the semantics of imports?
binding rules // classes
Class(c, _, _, _) :
defines Class c of type ClassT(c)
scopes Field, Method, Variable
Extends(c) :
imports Field, Method from Class c
ClassT(c) :
refers to Class c
New(c) :
refers to Class c

What is semantics of binding language?
- the meaning of a binding speciﬁcation for language L should be given by
- a function from L programs to their “resolution structures”
So we need
- a (uniform, language-independent) method for describing such resolution structures
...
- … that can be used to compute the resolution of each program identiﬁer
- (or to verify that a claimed resolution is valid)
That supports
- Handle broad range of language binding features ...
- … using minimal number of constructs
- Make resolution structure language-independent
- Handle named collections of names (e.g. modules, classes, etc.) within the theory
- Allow description of programs with resolution errors
Approach
49

Representation
- To conduct and represent the results of name resolution
Declarative Rules
- To deﬁne name binding rules of a language
Language-Independent Tooling
- Name resolution
- Code completion
- Refactoring
- …
Separation of Concerns in Name Binding
50

Representation
- ?
Declarative Rules
- Name resolution
- Code completion
- Refactoring
- …
51
Scope Graphs

52
if n < 1 then
1
else
n * fact(n - 1)
in
fact(10)
end
fact S1 fact
S2n
n
fact
nn
Scope GraphProgram
Name Resolution

A Calculus for Name Resolution
53
S R1 R2 SR
SRS
I(R1
)
S’S
S’S P
Sx
Sx R
xS
xS D
Path in scope graph connects reference to declaration
Scopes, References, Declarations, Parents, Imports
Neron, Tolmach, Visser, Wachsmuth
A Theory of Name Resolution
ESOP 2015

Simple Scopes
54
Reference
Declaration
Scope
Reference Step Declaration Step
def y1 = x2 + 1
def x1 = 5
S0
def y1 = x2 + 1
def x1 = 5
Sx
Sx R
xS
xS D
S0
y1
x1S0
y1
x1S0x2
R
y1
x1S0x2
R D
y1
x1S0x2
S
x
x

Lexical Scoping
55
S1
S0
Parent
def x1 = z2 5
def z1 =
fun y1 {
x2 + y2
}
S’S
S’S P
z1
x1S0z2
S1
y1y2 x2
z1
x1S0z2
S1
y1y2 x2
z1
x1S0z2
S1
y1y2 x2
z1
x1S0z2
R
S1
y1y2 x2
z1
x1S0z2
R
D
S1
y1y2 x2
z1
x1S0z2
R
S1
y1y2 x2
z1
x1S0z2
R
P
S1
y1y2 x2
z1
x1S0z2
R
P
D
S’S
Parent Step

Imports
56
Associated scope
Import
S0
SB
SA
module A1 {
def z1 = 5
}
module B1 {
import A2
def x1 = 1 + z2
}
A1
SA
z1
B1
SB
z2
S0
A2
x1
S R1
R2 SR
A1
SA
z1
B1
SB
z2
S0
A2
x1
A1
SA
z1
B1
SB
z2
S0
A2
x1
A1
SA
z1
B1
SB
z2
S0
A2
x1
R
A1
SA
z1
B1
SB
z2
S0
A2
x1
R
R
A1
SA
z1
B1
SB
z2
S0
A2
x1
R
R
P
A1
SA
z1
B1
SB
z2
S0
A2
x1
R
R
P
D
A1
SA
z1
B1
SB
z2
S0
A2
x1
I(A2
)R
R
P
D
A1
SA
z1
B1
SB
z2
S0
A2
x1
I(A2
)R
R
D
P
D
S R1 R2 SR
SRS
I(R1
)
Import Step

Qualiﬁed Names
57
module N1 {
def s1 = 5
}
module M1 {
def x1 = 1 + N2.s2
}
S0
N1
SN
s2
S0
N2
R
D
R
I(N2) D
X1
s1
N1
SN
s2
S0
N2
R
D
X1
s1
N1
SN
s2
S0
N2 X1
s1

58
S R1 R2 SR
SRS
I(R1
)
S’S
S’S P
Sx
Sx R
xS
xS D
Reachability of declarations from
references through scope graph edges
How about ambiguities?
References with multiple paths

59
S R1 R2 SR
SRS
I(R1
)
S’S
S’S P
Sx
Sx R
xS
xS D
I(_).p’ < P.p
D < I(_).p’
D < P.p
s.p < s.p’
p < p’
Visibility
Well formed path: R.P*.I(_)*.D
Reachability

Ambiguous Resolutions
60
match t with
| A x | B x => …
z1 x2
x1S0x3
z1 x2
x1S0x3
R
z1 x2
x1S0x3
R D
z1 x2
x1S0x3
R
D
z1 x2
x1S0x3
R D
D
S0def x1 = 5
def x2 = 3
def z1 = x3 + 1

Shadowing
61
S0
S1
S2
D < P.p
s.p < s.p’
p < p’
S1
S2
x1
y1
y2 x2
z1
x3S0z2
def x3 = z2 5 7
def z1 =
fun x1 {
fun y1 {
x2 + y2
}
}
S1
S2
x1
y1
y2 x2
z1
x3S0z2
R
P
P
D
S1
S2
x1
y1
y2 x2
z1
x3S0z2
D
P
R
R
P
P
D
R.P.D < R.P.P.D

Imports shadow Parents
62
I(_).p’ < P.p R.I(A2).D < R.P.D
A1
SA
z1
B1
SB
z2
S0
A2
x1
z3
A1
SA
z1
B1
SB
z2
S0
A2
x1
I(A2)R D
z3
A1
SA
z1
B1
SB
z2
S0
A2
x1
I(A2)R D
P
D
z3
R
S0def z3 = 2
module A1 {
def z1 = 5
}
module B1 {
import A2
def x1 = 1 + z2
}
SA
SB

Imports vs. Includes
63
S0def z3 = 2
module A1 {
def z1 = 5
}
import A2
def x1 = 1 + z2
SA A1
SA
z1
z2
S0
A2
x1
I(A2)
R
D
z3
R
D
D < I(_).p’
R.D < R.I(A2).D
A1
SA
z1
z2
S0
A2
x1
R
z3
D
A1
SA
z1
z2
S0
A2
x1z3
S0def z3 = 2
module A1 {
def z1 = 5
}
include A2
def x1 = 1 + z2
SA
X

Import Parents
64
def s1 = 5
module N1 {
}
def x1 = 1 + N2.s2
S0
SN
def s1 = 5
module N1 {
}
def x1 = 1 + N2.s2
S0
SN
N1
SN
s2
S0
N2
X1
s1
R
I(N2
)
D
P
N1
SN
s2
S0
N2
X1
s1

Transitive vs. Non-Transitive
65
With transitive imports, a well formed path is R.P*.I(_)*.D
With non-transitive imports, a well formed path is R.P*.I(_)?.D
A1
SA
z1
B1
SB
S0
A2
C1
SCz2
x1 B2
A1
SA
z1
B1
SB
S0
A2
I(A2
)
D
C1
SCz2
I(B2
)
R
x1 B2
??
module A1 {
def z1 = 5
}
module B1 {
import A2
}
module C1 {
import B2
def x1 = 1 + z2
}
SA
SB
SC

66
S R1 R2 SR
SRS
I(R1
)
S’S
S’S P
Sx
Sx R
xS
xS D
I(_).p’ < P.p
D < I(_).p’
D < P.p
s.p < s.p’
p < p’
Visibility
Reachability

Visibility Policies
67
Lexical scope
L := {P} E := P⇤
D < P
Non-transitive imports
L := {P, I} E := P⇤
· I?
D < P, D < I, I < P
Transitive imports
L := {P, TI} E := P⇤
· TI⇤
D < P, D < TI, TI < P
Transitive Includes
L := {P, Inc} E := P⇤
· Inc⇤
D < P, Inc < P
Transitive includes and imports, and non-transitive imports
L := {P, Inc, TI, I} E := P⇤
· (Inc | TI)⇤
· I?
D < P, D < TI, TI < P, Inc < P, D < I, I < P,
Figure 10. Example reachability and visibility policies by instan-
Envre
EnvL
re
EnvD
re
Envl
re

More Examples
68
From TUD-SERG-2015-001

Let Bindings
69
1
2
b2a1 c3
a4
b6
c12a10 b11
c5
b9
a7
c8
def a1 = 0
def b2 = 1
def c3 = 2
letpar
a4 = c5
b6 = a7
c8 = b9
in
a10+b11+c12
1
b2a1 c3
a4
b6
c12a10 b11
c5
b9
a7
c8
2
def a1 = 0
def b2 = 1
def c3 = 2
letrec
a4 = c5
b6 = a7
c8 = b9
in
a10+b11+c12
1
b2a1 c3
a4
b6
c12a10 b11
c5
b9
a7
c8
2
4
3
def a1 = 0
def b2 = 1
def c3 = 2
let
a4 = c5
b6 = a7
c8 = b9
in
a10+b11+c12

Deﬁnition before Use / Use before Deﬁnition
70
class C1 {
int a2 = b3;
int b4;
void m5 (int a6) {
int c7 = a8 + b9;
int b10 = b11 + c12;
}
int c12;
}
0 C1
1
2
a2
b4
c12
b3
m5
a6
3
4
c7
b10
b9
a8
b11 c12

Inheritance
71
class C1 {
int f2 = 42;
}
class D3 extends C4 {
int g5 = f6;
}
class E7 extends D8 {
int f9 = g10;
int h11 = f12;
}
32
1
C4
C1
4D3
E7
D8
f2 g5 f6
f9
g10
f12
h11

Java Packages
72
package p3;
class D4 {}
package p1;
class C2 {}
1 p3p1
2
p1 p3
3
D4C2

Java Import
73
package p1;
imports r2.*;
imports q3.E4;
public class C5 {}
class D6 {}
4
p1
D6C5
3
2r2
1
p1
E4
q3

C# Namespaces and Partial Classes
74
namespace N1 {
using M2;
partial class C3 {
int f4;
}
}
namespace N5 {
partial class C6 {
int m7() {
return f8;
}
}
}
1
3 6
4 7
8
C3 C6
N1 N5
f4 m7
N1 N5
C3 C6
f8
2 M2 5

Formal Framework
(with labeled scope edges)
75

Issues with the Reachability Calculus
76
S R1 R2 SR
SRS
I(R1
)
S’S
S’S P
Sx
Sx R
xS
xS D
I(_).p’ < P.p
D < I(_).p’
D < P.p
s.p < s.p’
p < p’
Disambiguating import paths
Fixed visibility policy
Cyclic Import Paths
Multi-import interpretation

Resolution Calculus with Edge Labels
77
! xD
j is the resolution relation for graph G.
f a name collection JNKG is the multiset defined
G = ⇡(DG(S)), JR(S)KG = ⇡(RG(S)), and
| 9p, `G p : S 7 ! xD
i }) where ⇡(A) is
ed by projecting the identifiers from a set A of
ations. Given a multiset M, 1M (x) denotes the
M.
alculus
ulus defines the resolution of a reference to a
pe graph as a most specific, well-formed path
eclaration through a sequence of edges. A path
epresenting the atomic scope transitions in the
ee kinds of steps:
step E(l, S2) is a direct transition from the
the scope S2. This step records the label of
ion that is used.
step N(l, yR
, S) requires the resolution of ref-
eclaration with associated scope S to allow a
en the current scope and scope S.
always ends with a declaration step D(xD
) that
ation the path is leading to.
d resolution in the graph from reference xR
i
uch that `G p : xR
i 7 ! xD
i according to
n Fig. 9. These rules all implicitly apply to
which we omit to avoid clutter. The calculus
n relation in terms of edges in the scope graph,
ns, and visible declarations. Here I is the set of
nical device needed to avoid “out of thin air”
Well-formed paths
WF(p) , labels(p) 2 E
Visibility ordering on paths
label(s1) < label(s2)
s1 · p1 < s2 · p2
p1 < p2
s · p1 < s · p2
Edges in scope graph
S1
l
S2
I ` E(l, S2) : S1 ! S2
(E)
S1
l
yR
i yR
i /2 I I ` p : yR
i 7 ! yD
j yD
j S2
I ` N(l, yR
i , S2) : S1 ! S2
(N)
Transitive closure
I, S ` [] : A ⇣ A
(I)
B /2 S I ` s : A ! B I, {B} [ S ` p : B ⇣ C
I, S ` s · p : A ⇣ C
(T)
Reachable declarations
I, {S} ` p : S ⇣ S0
WF(p) S0
xD
i
I ` p · D(xD
i ) : S ⇢ xD
i
(R)
Visible declarations
I ` p : S ⇢ xD
i
8j, p0
(I ` p0
: S ⇢ xD
j ) ¬(p0
< p))
I ` p : S 7 ! xD
i
(V )
Reference resolution
xR
i S {xR
i } [ I ` p : S 7 ! xD
j
I ` p : xR
i 7 ! xD
j
(X)
JN1KG ✓ JN2KG
G, |= N1
⇢
⇠ N2
(C-SUBNAME)
t1 = t2
G, |= t1 ⌘ t2
(C-EQ)
Figure 8. Interpretation of resolution and typing constraints
Resolution paths
s := D(xD
i ) | E(l, S) | N(l, xR
i , S)
p := [] | s | p · p (inductively generated)
[] · p = p · [] = p
(p1 · p2) · p3 = p1 · (p2 · p3)
Well-formed paths
WF(p) , labels(p) 2 E
Visibility ordering on paths
label(s1) < label(s2)
s1 · p1 < s2 · p2
p1 < p2
s · p1 < s · p2
Edges in scope graph
S1
l
S2
I ` E(l, S2) : S1 ! S2
(E)
S1
l
yR
i yR
i /2 I I ` p : yR
i 7 ! yD
j yD
j S2
I ` N(l, yR
i , S2) : S1 ! S2
(N)
Transitive closure
I, S ` [] : A ⇣ A
(I)
B /2 S I ` s : A ! B I, {B} [ S ` p : B ⇣ C
I, S ` s · p : A ⇣ C
(T)
Reachable declarations
I, {S} ` p : S ⇣ S0
WF(p) S0
xD
i
I ` p · D(xD
i ) : S ⇢ xD
i
(R)
C := CG
| CTy | CRes | C ^ C | True
CG
:= R S | S D | S l
S | D S | S l
R
CRes := R 7! D | D S | !N | N ⇢
⇠ N
CTy := T ⌘ T | D : T
D := | xD
i
R := xR
i
S := & | n
T := ⌧ | c(T, ..., T) with c 2 CT
N := D(S) | R(S) | V(S)
Figure 7. Syntax of constraints
scope graph resolution calculus (described in Section 3.3). Finally,
we apply |= with G set to CG
.
To lift this approach to constraints with variables, we simply
apply a multi-sorted substitution , mapping type variables ⌧ to
ground types, declaration variables to ground declarations and
scope variables & to ground scopes. Thus, our overall definition of
satisfaction for a program p is:
G Res Ty
F

Visibility Policies
78
Lexical scope
L := {P} E := P⇤
D < P
Non-transitive imports
L := {P, I} E := P⇤
· I?
D < P, D < I, I < P
Transitive imports
L := {P, TI} E := P⇤
· TI⇤
D < P, D < TI, TI < P
Transitive Includes
L := {P, Inc} E := P⇤
· Inc⇤
D < P, Inc < P
Transitive includes and imports, and non-transitive imports
L := {P, Inc, TI, I} E := P⇤
· (Inc | TI)⇤
· I?
D < P, D < TI, TI < P, Inc < P, D < I, I < P,
Figure 10. Example reachability and visibility policies by instan-
tiation of path well-formedness and visibility.
3.4 Parameterization
R[I](xR
)
Envre [I, S](S)
EnvL
re [I, S](S)
EnvD
re [I, S](S)
Envl
re [I, S](S)
ISl
[I](S)

Seen Imports
79
:SA2
s without import tracking.
specificity order on paths is
native visibility policies can
edicate and specificity order.
module A1 {
module A2 {
def a3 = ...
}
}
import A4
def b5 = a6
Fig. 11. Self im-
port
claration
ces to the
o module
ed so far,
kes a few
t AR
4 7 !
port at A4
the body
?
13
AD
2 :SA2 2 D(SA1 )
AR
4 2 I(Sroot)
AR
4 2 R(Sroot) AD
1 :SA1 2 D(Sroot)
AR
4 7 ! AD
1 :SA1
Sroot ! SA1 (⇤)
Sroot ⇢ AD
2 :SA2
AR
4 2 R(Sroot) Sroot 7 ! AD
2 :SA2
AR
4 7 ! AD
2 :SA2
Fig. 10. Derivation for AR
4 7 ! AD
2 :SA2 in a calculus without import tracking.
The complete definition of well-formed paths and specificity order on paths is
given in Fig. 2. In Section 2.5 we discuss how alternative visibility policies can
be defined by just changing the well-formedness predicate and specificity order.
module A1 {
module A2 {
def a3 = ...
}
}
import A4
def b5 = a6
Seen imports. Consider the example in Fig. 11. Is declaration
a3 reachable in the scope of reference a6? This reduces to the
question whether the import of A4 can resolve to module
A2. Surprisingly, it can, in the calculus as discussed so far,
as shown by the derivation in Fig. 10 (which takes a few
shortcuts). The conclusion of the derivation is that AR
4 7 !
AD
:S . This conclusion is obtained by using the import at A
as shown by the derivation in Fig. 10 (which takes a few
shortcuts). The conclusion of the derivation is that AR
4 7 !
AD
2 :SA2 . This conclusion is obtained by using the import at A4
to conclude at step (*) that Sroot ! SA1
, i.e. that the body
of module A1 is reachable! In other words, the import of A4
is used in its own resolution. Intuitively, this is nonsensical.
To rule out this kind of behavior we extend the calculus
to keep track of the set of seen imports I using judgements
of the form I ` p : xR
i 7 ! xD
j . We need to extend all rules to
pass the set I, but only the rules for resolution and import
are truly affected:
xR
i 2 R(S) {xR
i } [ I ` p : S 7 ! xD
j
I ` p : xR
i 7 ! xD
j
(X)
yR
i 2 I(S1) I I ` p : yR
i 7 ! yD
j :S2
I ` I(yR
i , yD
j :S2) : S1 ! S2
(I)
With this final ingredient, we reach the full calculus in

Anomaly
80
4
def b5 = a6
Fig. 11. Self im-
port
module A1 {
module B2 {
def x3 = 1
}
}
module B4 {
module A5 {
def y6 = 2
}
}
module C7 {
import A8
import B9
def z10 = x11
+ y12
}
Fig. 12. Anoma-
lous resolution
tcuts). The conclusion of the derivation is that AR
4 7 !
SA2 . This conclusion is obtained by using the import at A4
onclude at step (*) that Sroot ! SA1
, i.e. that the body
module A1 is reachable! In other words, the import of A4
sed in its own resolution. Intuitively, this is nonsensical.
To rule out this kind of behavior we extend the calculus
eep track of the set of seen imports I using judgements
he form I ` p : xR
i 7 ! xD
j . We need to extend all rules to
the set I, but only the rules for resolution and import
truly aﬀected:
xR
i 2 R(S) {xR
i } [ I ` p : S 7 ! xD
j
I ` p : xR
i 7 ! xD
j
(X)
yR
i 2 I(S1) I I ` p : yR
i 7 ! yD
j :S2
I ` I(yR
i , yD
j :S2) : S1 ! S2
(I)
With this ﬁnal ingredient, we reach the full calculus in
3. It is not hard to see that the resolution relation is
-founded. The only recursive invocation (via the I rule)
a strictly larger set I of seen imports (via the X rule); since the set R(G)
4
def b5 = a6
Fig. 11. Self im-
port
module A1 {
module B2 {
def x3 = 1
}
}
module B4 {
module A5 {
def y6 = 2
}
}
module C7 {
import A8
import B9
def z10 = x11
+ y12
}
Fig. 12. Anoma-
lous resolution
hat AR
4 7 !
mport at A4
at the body
mport of A4
onsensical.
he calculus
judgements
all rules to
and import
(X)
(I)
calculus in
relation is
the I rule)
he X rule); since the set R(G)
2
1
3
1
3
2

Resolution Algorithm
81
I < P
TI < P
c < P
mports
· I?
I < P,
es by instan-
R[I](xR
) := let (r, s) = EnvE [{xR
} [ I, ;](Sc(xR
))} in
(
U if r = P and {xD
|xD
2 s} = ;
{xD
|xD
2 s}
Envre [I, S](S) :=
(
(T, ;) if S 2 S or re = ?
Env
L[{D}
re [I, S](S)
EnvL
re [I, S](S) :=
[
l2Max(L)
⇣
Env
{l0
2L|l0
<l}
re [I, S](S) Envl
re [I, S](S)
⌘
EnvD
re [I, S](S) :=
(
(T, ;) if [] /2 re
(T, D(S))
Envl
re [I, S](S) :=
8
><
>:
(P, ;) if S
I
l contains a variable or ISl[I](S) = U
S
S02
⇣
ISl[I](S)[S
I
l
⌘
Env(l 1re)[I, {S} [ S](S0)
ISl
[I](S) :=
(
U if 9yR
2 (S
B
l I) s.t. R[I](yR
) = U
{S0 | yR
2 (S
B
l I) ^ yD
2 R[I](yR
) ^ yD
S0}

Language-independent 𝜶-equivalence
83
Position equivalence
in the same equivalence class are declarations of or reference to the same entity.
The abstract position ¯x identifies the equivalence class corresponding to the free
variable x.
Given a program P, we write P for the set of positions corresponding to
references and declarations and PX for P extended with the artificial positions
(e.g. ¯x). We define the
P
⇠ equivalence relation between elements of PX as the
reflexive symmetric and transitive closure of the resolution relation.
Definition 7 (Position equivalence).
` p : r i
x 7 ! di0
x
i
P
⇠ i0
i0 P
⇠ i
i
P
⇠ i0
i
P
⇠ i0
i0 P
⇠ i00
i
P
⇠ i00
i
P
⇠ i
In this equivalence relation, the class containing the abstract free variable dec-
laration can not contain any other declaration. So the references in a particular
class are either all free or all bound.
Lemma 6 (Free variable class). The equivalence class of a free variable does
not contain any other declaration, i.e. 8 di
x s.t. i
P
⇠ ¯x =) i = ¯x
xi xi'
Program similarity
↵-Equivalence
now define ↵-equivalence using scope graphs. Except for the leaves represen
identifiers, two ↵-equivalent programs must have the same abstract synt
. We write P ' P’ (pronounced “P and P’ are similar”) when the ASTs o
P’ are equal up to identifiers. To compare two programs we first compa
r AST structures; if these are equal then we compare how identifiers beha
hese programs. Since two potentially ↵-equivalent programs are similar, t
tifiers occur at the same positions. In order to compare the identifiers’ beha
we define equivalence classes of positions of identifiers in a program: positio
he same equivalence class are declarations of or reference to the same enti
abstract position ¯x identifies the equivalence class corresponding to the fr
able x.
Given a program P, we write P for the set of positions corresponding
rences and declarations and PX for P extended with the artificial positio
¯x). We define the
P
⇠ equivalence relation between elements of PX as t
if have same AST ignoring identifier names
tailed proof is in appendix A.5, we first prove:
` > : r i
x 7 ! d ¯x
x ) =) 8 p di0
x , p ` r i
x 7 ! di0
x =) i0
= ¯x ^ p = >
proceed by induction on the equivalence relation.
alence classes defined by this relation contain references to or d
he same entity. Given this relation, we can state that two progra
ent if the identifiers at identical positions refer to the same entit
to the same equivalence class:
n 8 (↵-equivalence). Two programs P1 and P2 are ↵-equivale
↵
⇡ P2) when they are similar and have the same ⇠-equivalence c
P1
↵
⇡ P2 , P1 ' P2 ^ 8 e e0
, e
P1
⇠ e0
, e
P2
⇠ e0
.
↵
⇡ is an equivalence relation since ' and , are equivalence rel(with some further details about free variables)
Alpha equivalence

Preserving ambiguity
84
25
module A1 {
def x2 := 1
}
module B3 {
def x4 := 2
}
module C5 {
import A6 B7 ;
def y8 := x9
}
module D10 {
import A11 ;
def y12 := x13
}
module E14 {
import B15 ;
def y16 := x17
}
P1
module AA1 {
def z2 := 1
}
module BB3 {
def z4 := 2
}
module C5 {
import AA6 BB7 ;
def s8 := z9
}
module D10 {
import AA11 ;
def u12 := z13
}
module E14 {
import BB15 ;
def v16 := z17
}
P2
module A1 {
def z2 := 1
}
module B3 {
def x4 := 2
}
module C5 {
import A6 B7 ;
def y8 := z9
}
module D10 {
import A11 ;
def y12 := z13
}
module E14 {
import B15 ;
def y16 := x17
}
P3
Fig. 23. ↵-equivalence and duplicate declarationP1
Lemma 6 (Free variable class). The equivalence class of a free va
x s.t. i
P
⇠ ¯x =) i = ¯x
Proof. Detailed proof is in appendix A.5, we first prove:
8 r i
x, (` > : r i
x 7 ! d ¯x
x ) =) 8 p di0
x , p ` r i
x 7 ! di0
x =) i0
= ¯x ^ p =
and then proceed by induction on the equivalence relation.
The equivalence classes defined by this relation contain references to
tions of the same entity. Given this relation, we can state that two p
↵-equivalent if the identifiers at identical positions refer to the same e
is belong to the same equivalence class:
Definition 8 (↵-equivalence). Two programs P1 and P2 are ↵-equi
noted P1
↵
⇡ P2) when they are similar and have the same ⇠-equivalen
P1
↵
⇡ P2 , P1 ' P2 ^ 8 e e0
, e
P1
⇠ e0
, e
P2
⇠ e0P2 P2
Lemma 6 (Free variable class). The equiva
x s.t
Proof. Detailed proof is in appendix A.5, we fi
8 r i
x, (` > : r i
x 7 ! d ¯x
x ) =) 8 p di0
x , p ` r i
x 7
and then proceed by induction on the equivale
The equivalence classes defined by this relation
tions of the same entity. Given this relation, w
↵-equivalent if the identifiers at identical posit
is belong to the same equivalence class:
Definition 8 (↵-equivalence). Two program
noted P1
↵
⇡ P2) when they are similar and hav
P1
↵
⇡ P2 , P1 ' P2 ^ 8 e e0
,P3

Representation: Scope Graphs
- Standardized representation for lexical scoping structure of programs
- Path in scope graph relates reference to declaration
- Basis for syntactic and semantic operations
Formalism: Name Binding Constraints
- References + Declarations + Scopes + Reachability + Visibility
- Language-speciﬁc rules map AST to constraints
Language-Independent Interpretation
- Resolution calculus: correctness of path with respect to scope graph
- Name resolution algorithm
- Alpha equivalence
- Mapping from graph to tree (to text)
- Refactorings
- And many other applications
Summary: A Theory of Name Resolution
86

We have modeled a large set of example binding patterns
- definition before use
- different let binding flavors
- recursive modules
- imports and includes
- qualified names
- class inheritance
- partial classes
Next goal: fully model some real languages
- In progress: Go, Rust, TypeScript
- Java, ML
Validation
87

Scope graph semantics for binding speciﬁcation
languages
- starting with NaBL
- or rather: a redesign of NaBL based on scope graphs
Resolution-sensitive program transformations
- renaming, refactoring, substitution, …
Dynamic analogs to static scope graphs
- how does scope graph relate to memory at run-time?
Supporting mechanized language meta-theory
- relating static and dynamic bindings
Future Work
88

Representation
- To conduct and represent the results of name resolution
Declarative Rules
- Name resolution
- Code completion
- Refactoring
- …
89

Representation
- ?
Declarative Rules
- Name resolution
- Code completion
- Refactoring
- …
90
Scope Graphs

Representation
- ?
Declarative Rules
- ?
- Name resolution
- Code completion
- Refactoring
- …
91
Scope & Type Constraint Rules [PEPM16]
Scope Graphs

Next: Constraint-Based Type Checkers
92
Program AST
Parse
Constraints
Generate
Constraints
Solution
Resolve
Constraints
Language
Speciﬁc
Language
Independent

Declare Your Language: Name Resolution

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Similar a Declare Your Language: Name Resolution

Similar a Declare Your Language: Name Resolution (20)

Más de Eelco Visser

Más de Eelco Visser (14)

Último

Último (20)

Declare Your Language: Name Resolution