Statically Typed Metaprogramming?

Question

I've been thinking about what I would miss in porting some Python code to a statically typed language such as F# or Scala; the libraries can be substituted, the conciseness is comparable, but I have lots of python code which is as follows:

@specialclass
class Thing(object):
    @specialFunc
    def method1(arg1, arg2):
        ...
    @specialFunc
    def method2(arg3, arg4, arg5):
        ...

Where the decorators do a huge amount: replacing the methods with callable objects with state, augmenting the class with additional data and properties, etc.. Although Python allows dynamic monkey-patch metaprogramming anywhere, anytime, by anyone, I find that essentially all my metaprogramming is done in a separate "phase" of the program. i.e.:

load/compile .py files
transform using decorators
// maybe transform a few more times using decorators
execute code // no more transformations!

These phases are basically completely distinct; I do not run any application level code in the decorators, nor do I perform any ninja replace-class-with-other-class or replace-function-with-other-function in the main application code. Although the "dynamic"ness of the language says I can do so anywhere I want, I never go around replacing functions or redefining classes in the main application code because it gets crazy very quickly.

I am, essentially, performing a single re-compile on the code before i start running it.

The only similar metapogramming i know of in statically typed languages is reflection: i.e. getting functions/classes from strings, invoking methods using argument arrays, etc. However, this basically converts the statically typed language into a dynamically typed language, losing all type safety (correct me if i'm wrong?). Ideally, I think, I would have something like the following:

load/parse application files 
load/compile transformer
transform application files using transformer
compile
execute code

Essentially, you would be augmenting the compilation process with arbitrary code, compiled using the normal compiler, that will perform transformations on the main application code. The point is that it essentially emulates the "load, transform(s), execute" workflow while strictly maintaining type safety.

If the application code are borked the compiler will complain, if the transformer code is borked the compiler will complain, if the transformer code compiles but doesn't do the right thing, either it will crash or the compilation step after will complain that the final types don't add up. In any case, you will never get the runtime type-errors possible by using reflection to do dynamic dispatch: it would all be statically checked at every step.

So my question is, is this possible? Has it already been done in some language or framework which I do not know about? Is it theoretically impossible? I'm not very familiar with compiler or formal language theory, I know it would make the compilation step turing complete and with no guarantee of termination, but it seems to me that this is what I would need to match the sort of convenient code-transformation i get in a dynamic language while maintaining static type checking.

EDIT: One example use case would be a completely generic caching decorator. In python it would be:

cacheDict = {}
def cache(func):
    @functools.wraps(func)
    def wrapped(*args, **kwargs):
        cachekey = hash((args, kwargs))
        if cachekey not in cacheDict.keys():
            cacheDict[cachekey] = func(*args, **kwargs)
        return cacheDict[cachekey]
    return wrapped


@cache
def expensivepurefunction(arg1, arg2):
    # do stuff
    return result

While higher order functions can do some of this or objects-with-functions-inside can do some of this, AFAIK they cannot be generalized to work with any function taking an arbitrary set of parameters and returning an arbitrary type while maintaining type safety. I could do stuff like:

public Thingy wrap(Object O){ //this probably won't compile, but you get the idea
    return (params Object[] args) => {
        //check cache
        return InvokeWithReflection(O, args)
    }
}

But all the casting completely kills type safety.

EDIT: This is a simple example, where the function signature does not change. Ideally what I am looking for could modify the function signature, changing the input parameters or output type (a.l.a. function composition) while still maintaining type checking.

Answer 1

Very interesting question.

Some points regarding metaprogramming in Scala:

• In scala 2.10 there will be developments in scala reflection

• There is work in source to source transformation (macros) which is something you are looking for: scalamacros.org

• Java has introspection (through the reflection api) but does not allow self modification. However you can use tools to support this (such as javassist). In theory you could use these tools in Scala to achieve more than introspection.

• From what I could understand of your development process, you separate your domain code from your decorators (or a cross cutting concern if you will) which allow to achieve modularity and code simplicity. This can be a good use for aspect oriented programming, which allows to just that. For Java theres is a library (aspectJ), however I'm dubious it will run with Scala.

Answer 2

So my question is, is this possible?

There are many ways to achieve the same effect in statically-typed programming languages.

You have essentially described the process of doing some term rewriting on a program before executing it. This functionality is perhaps best known in the form of the Lisp macro but some statically typed languages also have macro systems, most notably OCaml's camlp4 macro system which can be used to extend the language.

More generally, you are describing one form of language extensibility. There are many alternatives and different languages provide different techniques. See my blog post Extensibility in Functional Programming for more information. Note that many of these languages are research projects so the motivation is to add novel features and not necessarily good features, so they rarely retrofit good features that were invented elsewhere.

The ML (meta language) family of languages including Standard ML, OCaml and F# were specifically designed for metaprogramming. Consequently, they tend to have awesome support for lexing, parsing, rewriting, interpreting and compiling. However, F# is the most far removed member of this family and lacks the mature tools that languages like OCaml benefit from (e.g. camlp4, ocamllex, dypgen, menhir etc.). F# does have a partial implementation of fslex, fsyacc and a Haskell-inspired parser combinator library called FParsec.

You may well find that the problem you are facing (which you have not described) is better solved using more traditional forms of metaprogramming, most notably a DSL or EDSL.

Answer 3

Without knowing why you're doing this, it's difficult to know whether this kind of approach is the right one in Scala or F#. But ignoring that for now, it's certainly possible to achieve in Scala, at least, although not at the language level.

A compiler plugin gives you access to the tree and allows you to perform all kinds of manipulation of that tree, all fully typechecked.

There are some issues with generating synthetic methods in Scala compiler plugins - it's difficult for me to know whether that will be a problem for you.

It is possible to work around this by creating a compiler plugin that generates source code which is then compiled in a separate pass. This is how ScalaMock works, for instance.

Answer 4

You might be interested in source-to-source program transformation systems (PTS).

Such tools parse the source code, producing an AST, and then allow one to define arbitrary analyses and/or transformations on the code, finally regenerating source code from the modified AST.

Some tools provide parsing, tree building and AST navigation by a procedural interface, such as ANTLR. Many of the more modern dynamic languages (Python, Scala, etc.) have had some self-hosting parser libraries built, and even Java (compiler plug-ins) and C# (open compiler) are catching on to this idea.

But mostly these tools only provide procedural access to the AST. A system with surface-syntax rewriting allows you to express "if you see this change it to that" using patterns with the syntax of the language(s) being manipulated. These include Stratego/XT and TXL.

It is our experience that manipulating complex languages requires complex compiler support and reasoning; this is the canonical lesson from 70 years of people building compilers. All of the above tools suffer from not having access to symbol tables and various kinds of flow analysis; after all, how one part of the program operates, depends on action taken in remote parts, so information flow is fundamental. [As noted in comments on another answer, you can implement symbol tables/flow analysis with those tools; my point is they give you no special support for doing so, and these are difficult tasks, even worse on modern languages with complex type systems and control flows].

Our DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit is a PTS that provides all of the above facilities (Life After Parsing), at some cost in configuring it to your particular language or DSL, which we try to ameliorate by providing these off-the-shelf for mainstream languages. [DMS provides explicit infrastructure for building/managing symbol tables, control and data flow; this has been used to implement these mechanisms for Java 1.8 and full C++14].

DMS has also been used to define meta-AOP, tools that enable one to build AOP systems for arbitrary languages and apply AOP like operations.

In any case, to the extent that you simply modify the AST, directly or indirectly, you have no guarantee of "type safety". You can only get that by writing transformation rules that don't break it. For that, you'd need a theorem prover to check that each modification (or composition of such) didn't break type safety, and that's pretty much beyond the state of the art. However, you can be careful how you write your rules, and get pretty useful systems.

You can see an example of specification of a DSL and manipulation with surface-syntax source-to-source rewriting rules, that preserves semantics, in this example that defines and manipulates algebra and calculus using DMS. I note this example is simple to make it understandable; in particular, its does not exhibit any of the flow analysis machinery DMS offers.