Posted on 06 February 2016.

This is the first post in a series about resugaring. It focuses on resugaring evaluation sequences. See also our later posts on resugaring scope rules and resugaring type rules.

A lot of programming languages are defined in terms of syntactic sugar. This has many advantages, but also a couple of drawbacks. In this post, I’m going to tell you about one of these drawbacks, and the solution we found for it. First, though, let me describe what syntactic sugar is and why it’s used.

Syntactic sugar is when you define a piece of syntax in a language in terms of the rest of the language. You’re probably already familiar with many examples. For instance, in Python, x + y is syntactic sugar for x.__add__(y) . I’m going to use the word “desugaring” to mean the expansion of syntactic sugar, so I’ll say that x + y desugars to x.__add__(y) . Along the same lines, in Haskell, [f x | x <- lst] desugars to map f lst . (Well, I’m simplifying a little bit; the full desugaring is given by the Haskell 98 spec.)

As a programming language researcher I love syntactic sugar, and you should too. It splits a language into two parts: a big “surface” language that has the sugar, and a much smaller “core” language that lacks it. This separation lets programmers use the surface language that has all of the features they know and love, while letting tools work over the much simpler core language, which lets the tools themselves be simpler and more robust.

There’s a problem, though (every blog post needs a problem). What happens when a tool, which has been working over the core language, tries to show code to the programmer, who has been working over the surface? Let’s zoom in on one instance of this problem. Say you write a little snippet of code, like so: (This code is written in an old version of Pyret; it should be readable even if you don’t know the language.)

my-list = [2] cases(List) my-list: | empty() => print("empty") | link(something, _) => print("not empty") end

And now say you’d like to see how this code runs. That is, you’d like to see an evaluation sequence (a.k.a. an execution trace) of this program. Or maybe you already know what it will do, but you’re teaching students, and would like to show them how it will run. Well, what actually happens when you run this code is that it is first desugared into the core, like so:

my-list = list.["link"](2, list.["empty"]) block: tempMODRIOUJ :: List = my-list tempMODRIOUJ.["_match"]({ "empty" : fun(): print("empty") end, "link" : fun(something, _): print("not empty") end }, fun(): raise("cases: no cases matched") end) end

This core code is then run (each block of code is the next evaluation step):

my-list = obj.["link"](2, list.["empty"]) block: tempMODRIOUJ :: List = my-list tempMODRIOUJ.["_match"]({"empty" : fun(): print("empty") end, "link" : fun(something, _): print("not empty") end}, fun(): raise("cases: no cases matched") end) end my-list = obj.["link"](2, list.["empty"]) block: tempMODRIOUJ :: List = my-list tempMODRIOUJ.["_match"]({"empty" : fun(): print("empty") end, "link" : fun(something, _): print("not empty") end}, fun(): raise("cases: no cases matched") end) end my-list = <func>(2, list.["empty"]) block: tempMODRIOUJ :: List = my-list tempMODRIOUJ.["_match"]({"empty" : fun(): print("empty") end, "link" : fun(something, _): print("not empty") end}, fun(): raise("cases: no cases matched") end) end my-list = <func>(2, obj.["empty"]) block: tempMODRIOUJ :: List = my-list tempMODRIOUJ.["_match"]({"empty" : fun(): print("empty") end, "link" : fun(something, _): print("not empty") end}, fun(): raise("cases: no cases matched") end) end my-list = <func>(2, obj.["empty"]) block: tempMODRIOUJ :: List = my-list tempMODRIOUJ.["_match"]({"empty" : fun(): print("empty") end, "link" : fun(something, _): print("not empty") end}, fun(): raise("cases: no cases matched") end) end my-list = <func>(2, []) block: tempMODRIOUJ :: List = my-list tempMODRIOUJ.["_match"]({"empty" : fun(): print("empty") end, "link" : fun(something, _): print("not empty") end}, fun(): raise("cases: no cases matched") end) end my-list = [2] block: tempMODRIOUJ :: List = my-list tempMODRIOUJ.["_match"]({"empty" : fun(): print("empty") end, "link" : fun(something, _): print("not empty") end}, fun(): raise("cases: no cases matched") end) end tempMODRIOUJ :: List = [2] tempMODRIOUJ.["_match"]({"empty" : fun(): print("empty") end, "link" : fun(something, _): print("not empty") end}, fun(): raise("cases: no cases matched") end) [2].["_match"]({"empty" : fun(): print("empty") end, "link" : fun(something, _): print("not empty") end}, fun(): raise("cases: no cases matched") end) [2].["_match"]({"empty" : fun(): print("empty") end, "link" : fun(something, _): print("not empty") end}, fun(): raise("cases: no cases matched") end) <func>({"empty" : fun(): end, "link" : fun(something, _): print("not empty") end}, fun(): raise("cases: no cases matched") end) <func>({"empty" : fun(): end, "link" : fun(): end}, fun(): raise("cases: no cases matched") end) <func>(obj, fun(): raise("cases: no cases matched") end) <func>(obj, fun(): end) <func>("not empty") "not empty"

But that wasn’t terribly helpful, was it? Sometimes you want to see exactly what a program is doing in all its gory detail (along the same lines, it’s occassionally helpful to see the assembly code a program is compiling to), but most of the time it would be nicer if you could see things in terms of the syntax you wrote the program with! In this particular example, it would be much nicer to see:

my-list = [2] cases(List) my-list: | empty() => print("empty") | link(something, _) => print("not empty") end my-list = [2] cases(List) my-list: | empty() => print("empty") | link(something, _) => print("not empty") end cases(List) [2]: | empty() => print("empty") | link(something, _) => print("not empty") end <func>("not empty") "not empty"

(You might have noticed that the first step got repeated for what looks like no reason. What happened there is that the code [2] was evaluated to an actual list, which also prints itself as [2] .)

So we built a tool that does precisely this. It turns core evaluation sequences into surface evaluation sequences. We call the process resugaring, because it’s the opposite of desugaring: we’re adding the syntactic sugar back into your program. The above example is actual output from the tool, for an old version of Pyret. I’m currently working on a version for modern Pyret.

Resugaring Explained

I always find it helpful to introduce a diagram when explaining resugaring. On the right is the core evaluation sequence, which is the sequence of steps that the program takes when it actually runs. And on the left is the surface evaluation sequence, which is what you get when you try to resugar each step in the core evaluation sequence. As a special case, the first step on the left is the original program.

Here’s an example. The starting program will be not(true) or true , where not is in the core language, but or is defined as a piece of sugar:

x or y ==desugar==> let t = x in if t then t else y

And here’s the diagram:

The steps (downarrows) in the core evaluation sequence are ground truth: they are what happens when you actually run the program. In contrast, the steps in the surface evaluation sequence are made up; the whole surface evaluation sequence is an attempt at reconstructing a nice evaluation sequence by resugaring each of the core steps. Notice that the third core term fails to resugar. This is because there’s no good way to represent it in terms of or .

Formal Properties of Resugaring

It’s no good to build a tool without having a precise idea of what it’s supposed to do. To this end, we came up with three properties that (we think) capture exactly what it means for a resugared evaluation sequence to be correct. It will help to look at the diagram above when thinking about these properties.

Emulation says that every term on the left should desugar to the term to its right. This expresses the idea that the resugared terms can’t lie about the term they’re supposed to represent. Another way to think about this is that desugaring and resugaring are inverses. Abstraction says that the surface evaluation sequence on the left should show a sugar precisely when the programmer used it. So, for example, it should show things using or and not let , because the original program used or but not let . Coverage says that you should show as many steps as possible. Otherwise, technically the surface evaluation sequence could just be empty! That would satisfy both Emulation and Abstraction, which only say things about the steps that are shown.

We’ve proved that our resugaring algorithm obeys Emulation and Abstraction, and given some good emperical evidence that it obeys Coverage too.

I’ve only just introduced resugaring. If you’d like to read more, see the paper, and the followup that deals with hygiene (e.g., preventing variable capture).