Bounds checking: Difference between revisions
m (Reverted edits by Tomjaguarpaw (talk) to last revision by DonStewart) |
m (Could use some more content...) |
||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
clarity of code, on well-supported programming languages. | clarity of code, on well-supported programming languages. | ||
That does not have to be the case. [These | That does not have to be the case. [These examples] show non-trivial | ||
examples involving native Haskell arrays, index computations, and general | examples involving native Haskell arrays, index computations, and general | ||
recursion. All arrays indexing operations are statically guaranteed to be safe | recursion. All arrays indexing operations are statically guaranteed to be safe | ||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
[[Category:Idioms]] | [[Category:Idioms]] | ||
[[Category:Pages under construction]] |
Latest revision as of 01:33, 26 April 2021
"There is a view that in order to gain static assurances such as an array index being always in range or tail being applied to a non-empty list, we must give up on something significant: on data structures such as arrays (to be replaced with nested tuples), on general recursion, on annotation-free programming, on clarity of code, on well-supported programming languages.
That does not have to be the case. [These examples] show non-trivial examples involving native Haskell arrays, index computations, and general recursion. All arrays indexing operations are statically guaranteed to be safe -- and so we can safely use an efficient unsafeAt provided by GHC seemingly for that purpose. The code is efficient; the static assurances cost us no run-time overhead. The example uses only Haskell98 + higher-ranked types. No new type classes are introduced. The safety is based on: Haskell type system, quantified type variables, and a compact general-purpose trusted kernel."
Eliminating Array Bound Checking through Non-dependent types