With everything else I've been having to deal with the past couple months, I have not made nearly as much progress on Featherweight Scala as I would have liked. Fortunately, in the past two weeks I have finally started to get back on track.
Probably what makes working out the design of Featherweight Scala so difficult is that I am trying my best to commit to it being a valid subset of Scala. It seems like whenever I try to simplify one part of the language, it just introduces a complication elsewhere. Still, I think so far that I have been able to ensure that it is a subset with two exceptions.
The first exception is that some programs in Featherweight Scala will diverge in cases where the Scala compiler will generate a terminating program. This is because in programs that attempt to access an uninitialized field, Scala will return
null, while Featherweight Scala diverges. Since the program many never attempt to use the
null value, it may simple terminate without raising a
The second exception arises because type checking in Featherweight Scala's type system is most likely undecidable. Given that the design is in flux, I haven't precisely verified this, but it seems quite plausible given its expressive power is similar to languages where type checking is known to be undecidable. Because type checking is undecidable, and the Scala language implementation attempts to have its type checking phase be terminating, there should be some programs that can be shown to be well-typed in Featherweight Scala that the Scala compiler will reject.
I think the other thing I've determined is that I do not understand F-bounded quantification as well as I thought I did. At least, I find myself worried about the cases where the typing rules presently require templates, that have not yet been verified to be well-formed, to be introduced as hypotheses while verifying their own correctness. So I need to do some additional reading to see how some other languages deal with this issue. Certainly I can put my mind at ease by making the type system more restrictive, but I do not want to be so restrictive that it is no longer reasonable to call the language Featherweight Scala.
Update: Okay, so after looking at Featherweight Generic Java and νObj again more closely, they both do essentially the same kind of thing. In FGJ, the class table is well-formed if all its classes are well-formed, but checking a class's well-formedness may require presupposing that that class tale is well-formed. In νObj, the well-formedness of recursive record types is checked under the assumption that the record's self-name has the type of the record. Certainly the same sort of things come up when verifying the well-formedness of recursive functions and recursive types, but at least there what is being assumed is at a higher level of abstraction: when checking a recursive function you assume that the function has some well-formed type, or when checking a recursive type you assume that the type has some well-formed kind.