The 14th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming (ICFP) took place on August 31–September 2, 2009 in Edinburgh, Scotland; Andrew Tolmach chaired the program committee. Following the conference, the authors of selected papers were invited to submit extended versions for this special issue of JFP. After review and revision, four papers were accepted for inclusion in this volume. Each paper contains substantial new material beyond the original conference version. The papers are representative of the wide range of topics and methodology that characterize ICFP.

Advanced type system features, such as GADTs, type classes and type families, have proven to be invaluable language extensions for ensuring data invariants and program correctness. Unfortunately, they pose a tough problem for type inference when they are used as local type assumptions. Local type assumptions often result in the lack of principal types and cast the generalisation of local let-bindings prohibitively difficult to implement and specify. User-declared axioms only make this situation worse. In this paper, we explain the problems and – perhaps controversially – argue for abandoning local let-binding generalisation. We give empirical results that local let generalisation is only sporadically used by Haskell programmers. Moving on, we present a novel constraint-based type inference approach for local type assumptions. Our system, called OutsideIn(X), is parameterised over the particular underlying constraint domain X, in the same way as HM(X). This stratification allows us to use a common metatheory and inference algorithm. OutsideIn(X) extends the constraints of X by introducing implication constraints on top. We describe the strategy for solving these implication constraints, which, in turn, relies on a constraint solver for X. We characterise the properties of the constraint solver for X so that the resulting algorithm only accepts programs with principal types, even when the type system specification accepts programs that do not enjoy principal types. Going beyond the general framework, we give a particular constraint solver for X = type classes + GADTs + type families, a non-trivial challenge in its own right. This constraint solver has been implemented and distributed as part of GHC 7.

Functional logic programming and probabilistic programming have demonstrated the broad benefits of combining laziness (nonstrict evaluation with sharing of the results) with nondeterminism. Yet these benefits are seldom enjoyed in functional programming because the existing features for nonstrictness, sharing, and nondeterminism in functional languages are tricky to combine. We present a practical way to write purely functional lazy nondeterministic programs that are efficient and perspicuous. We achieve this goal by embedding the programs into existing languages (such as Haskell, SML, and OCaml) with high-quality implementations, by making choices lazily and representing data with nondeterministic components, by working with custom monadic data types and search strategies, and by providing equational laws for the programmer to reason about their code.

Arrows are a popular form of abstract computation. Being more general than monads, they are more broadly applicable, and, in particular, are a good abstraction for signal processing and dataflow computations. Most notably, arrows form the basis for a domain-specific language called Yampa, which has been used in a variety of concrete applications, including animation, robotics, sound synthesis, control systems, and graphical user interfaces. Our primary interest is in better understanding the class of abstract computations captured by Yampa. Unfortunately, arrows are not concrete enough to do this with precision. To remedy this situation, we introduce the concept of commutative arrows that capture a noninterference property of concurrent computations. We also add an init operator that captures the causal nature of arrow effects, and identify its associated law. To study this class of computations in more detail, we define an extension to arrows called causal commutative arrows (CCA), and study its properties. Our key contribution is the identification of a normal form for CCA called causal commutative normal form (CCNF). By defining a normalization procedure, we have developed an optimization strategy that yields dramatic improvements in performance over conventional implementations of arrows. We have implemented this technique in Haskell, and conducted benchmarks that validate the effectiveness of our approach. When compiled with the Glasgow Haskell Compiler (GHC), the overall methodology can result in significant speedups.

Type abstraction and intensional type analysis are features seemingly at odds—type abstraction is intended to guarantee parametricity and representation independence, while type analysis is inherently non-parametric. Recently, however, several researchers have proposed and implemented “dynamic type generation” as a way to reconcile these features. The idea is that, when one defines an abstract type, one should also be able to generate at runtime a fresh type name, which may be used as a dynamic representative of the abstract type for purposes of type analysis. The question remains: in a language with non-parametric polymorphism, does dynamic type generation provide us with the same kinds of abstraction guarantees that we get from parametric polymorphism?

Our goal is to provide a rigorous answer to this question. We define a step-indexed Kripke logical relation for a language with both non-parametric polymorphism (in the form of type-safe cast) and dynamic type generation. Our logical relation enables us to establish parametricity and representation independence results, even in a non-parametric setting, by attaching arbitrary relational interpretations to dynamically generated type names. In addition, we explore how programs that are provably equivalent in a more traditional parametric logical relation may be “wrapped” systematically to produce terms that are related by our non-parametric relation, and vice versa. This leads us to develop a “polarized” variant of our logical relation, which enables us to distinguish formally between positive and negative notions of parametricity.