Biblio
Syntax extension mechanisms are powerful, but reasoning about syntax extensions can be difficult. Recent work on type-specific languages (TSLs) addressed reasoning about composition, hygiene and typing for extensions introducing new literal forms. We supplement TSLs with typed syntax macros (TSMs), which, unlike TSLs, are explicitly invoked to give meaning to delimited segments of arbitrary syntax. To maintain a typing discipline, we describe two avors of term-level TSMs: synthetic TSMs specify the type of term that they generate, while analytic TSMs can generate terms of arbitrary type, but can only be used in positions where the type is otherwise known. At the level of types, we describe a third avor of TSM that generates a type of a specified kind along with its TSL and show interesting use cases where the two mechanisms operate in concert.
This paper introduces typy, a statically typed programming language embedded by reflection into Python. typy features a fragmentary semantics, i.e. it delegates semantic control over each term, drawn from Python's fixed concrete and abstract syntax, to some contextually relevant user-defined semantic fragment. The delegated fragment programmatically 1) typechecks the term (following a bidirectional protocol); and 2) assigns dynamic meaning to the term by computing a translation to Python. We argue that this design is expressive with examples of fragments that express the static and dynamic semantics of 1) functional records; 2) labeled sums (with nested pattern matching a la ML); 3) a variation on JavaScript's prototypal object system; and 4) typed foreign interfaces to Python and OpenCL. These semantic structures are, or would need to be, defined primitively in conventionally structured languages. We further argue that this design is compositionally well-behaved. It avoids the expression problem and the problems of grammar composition because the syntax is fixed. Moreover, programs are semantically stable under fragment composition (i.e. defining a new fragment will not change the meaning of existing program components.)
Injection vulnerabilities have topped rankings of the most critical web application vulnerabilities for several years [1, 2]. They can occur anywhere where user input may be erroneously executed as code. The injected input is typically aimed at gaining unauthorized access to the system or to private information within it, corrupting the system's data, or disturbing system availability. Injection vulnerabilities are tedious and difficult to prevent.