• Program in a functional programming language
• Understand the evaluation of programs in a functional programming language
• Write a type checker / type inferencer given a formal type system
• Write a lexer, and a parser using recursive-descent parsing, or using a parser-generator
• Write a syntax-directed translator from abstract syntax to intermediate representations
• Recognize and use major methods of specification of dynamic semantics
• Write a interpreter based on a formal operational semantics of the language

• Attendance in CS 421 is expected, and the student accepts that work done in the class period or a proctored examination may only be made up because of a reason outlined in the student code in Section 1‑501 d - f, or because of illness immediately affecting the day of absence, with notification being given to the instructor before the class or examination, or as soon as possible afterwards if the illness is serious enough to have reasonably prevented earlier contact.
• All work missed as a result of an excused absence must be made up with three (3) business days of the missed class for in-class events unless a letter of absence from the Student Assistance Center is provided and indicates a reason for absence of a greater period of time. In the case of a prolonged absence, as documented in an absence letter, work must be made up within three (3) business days of the end of documented need for absence.
• When a quiz or exam is held in the CBTF, students are required to register for the event before the testing period opens. Failure to do so will not automatically grant the right to a make-up.
• Reasons that do not count as a conflict, but as the student's personal choice not requiring consideration incude
  • Travel, except as part of a University sponsored event.
  • Family visits, whether the student travels to their family or their family travels to them.
  • Appointments that could reasonably be scheduled/rescheduled not to conflict with the class period.
  • Reasons listed in 1‑501.d.6.(i)-(iii), and for other reasons which do not satisfy the standard of significant and compelling, as determined by the course instructor.
• Requests for personnal accommodation may be considered, but they will be handled in as uniform manner as the circumstances allow. Requests must be made at least one week in advance of the date of the desired absence, unless clearly not possible by the circumstances of the reason for the request.

• For email and Campuswire : please allow about 24 or so hours for a response, except on weekends (see below).
• The staff are not asked to work on the weekends. If you send or post something late Friday or over the weekend then you should not expect a reply before Monday.
• Never ever EVER call any staff at home.

This semester, there are two kinds of assignments in this course: machine problems (MPs), and web assignments (WAs). MPs are submitted as text files, one for each problem, with the file usually named after the code being implemented. WAs are calculational exercises. Both are submitted in PrairieLearn.

For each problem in an MP or coding problem on an examination, you will be given in PrairieLearn a separate VSCode window, containing a directory (listed to the left), an editor (VSCode) with a window for opening the file for you to complete with the answer to the problem. That file typically will already contain a bit of starter code sufficient for you to begin testing your work. VSCode also has the ability for you to start a terminal window, which will open placing you in a directory with all the files you need to complete and test the assignment, (as listed on the left), and with full access to the compiler for OCaml, the programming language we will be using this semester.

Before submitting a coding question on a examination or an MP assignment, you MUST make sure that your MP compiles with the student grading script supplied with the assignment. You can do this by typing make onthe terminal window and making sure that your are given a grade report with a list of tests run and whether they were passed, with the points earned for the student test suite. If your question fails to compile with the student grading script, your question will receive NO CREDIT. There will be no partial credit for coding questions that fail to compile.

You may do multiple commits of either the MPs or the WAs. Your best score will be your final score. Work submitted before the late deadline will not be subject to the late penalty, but work submitted after will.

Each MP/AW will normally have an automatic 48-hour extension with a penalty on that MP/WA is capped at 80% of the value of the assignment. If we cannot give such an extension for a particular MP/WA, for example due to scheduling constraints, we will announce that when the MP/WA is handed out.

During the automatic extension, staff is not obliged to answer questions for that MP/WA. You are on your own.

Extensions without a point penalty for the first 48 hours and any extension beyond the 48 hours will only be granted under very unusual circumstances such as a medical or family emergency. A signed note from a responsible party, or similar evidence, will be required. If you do need such an extension for some legitimate reason, do your best to let us know as soon as possible, preferably before the normal MP/WA deadline.

All grading is done automatically in PrairieLearn via algorithms that are fairly generic and in no way specialized to your code. A regrade for you will likely mean a regrade for the entire class. Requesting a regrade requires an explanation of why you believe your answer was incorrectly graded.

In order to have your regrade considered you must provide the following:

• your netid;
• what assignment or exam question was graded incorrectly; and
• what evidence you have that your answer was incorrectly graded.

You must also submit your regrade request for a particular assignment within one week of receiving grades for that assignment . It must be submitted directly to the course instructor, not to the TAs. Late regrade requests will not be accepted or read.

Good reasons to ask for a regrade:

• The grading was inconsistent with the description of how to do the problem given in class. Details need to be provided.
• The grading was inconsistent with the problem statement. You must indicate what you believe the inconsistency to be.

Bad reasons to ask for a regrade:

• Part of your answer "matched" the answer given in the solution. A partially correct answer is still wrong.

  "The difference between an almost right word and a right word is the difference between a lightning bug and lightning." -- Mark Twain

• You wrote down two or more answers, only one of which was correct. Never put more than one answer for a question unless we tell you that such a thing is legitimate.
• You expended a lot of effort answering the problem. We are measuring mastery, not effort.
• You wrote something down.

If your collaboration extended beyond understanding for what the problem was asking, then you should note on your assignment with whom you collaborated. As always, you are subject to the rules for plagiarism. Whether you pass this course or not will depend heavily on whether you pass the exams -- and those are non-collaborative.

We allow you to collaborate for several reasons:

• substantial research done indicates that students learn more when they are allowed to work together;
• our own ability to respond to student questions is increased because your peers are able to give help.

However, you have to collaborate intelligently in order to get the most out of it. If you ask a friend to describe the solution completely to you and then write it down, you will get the credit (so long as you do not copy verbatim, and you properly cite) but you'll fail the exam, or do quite poorly, because you never learned the methods/techniques/concepts.

• If you verbatim copy, or copy with name changes, from a friend's solution or other source, wholly or substantially, if you cite, this is still violation of course policy and you will receive a zero on the assignment if it is determined such copying took place.
• If you verbatim copy, or copy with only name changes, from a friend's solution or other source, wholly or substantially, if you did not cite, or did not cite truthfully, that will be considered cheating.
• If you work as a group, each writing part and sharing it with the others, that is also considered cheating, unless your cite all members from whom you copied. Again, it will be a course violation of course policy if you copy verbatim or with only name changes, even if you cite and you will risk losing all credit for the parts so copied.
• If you copied your answer from a source on the internet, that is considered cheating, unless you both cite your source, and clearly indicate what was copied. If you cite, but copy verbatim or with only name changes, again that is a course policy violation, and if determined, will result in the loss of credit for those parts so copied.

The penalties for being discovered cheating are described in the next section, below. If you offer your solution for others to copy, you should protect yourself from being accused of cheating by reporting this as well. Then, if some of those to whom you have lent your work fail to cite you, you will be protected from cheating accusations (unless they also claim they lent the same problem to you).

If you copy your solutions from friends or other sources, you must cite your source, and the degree and extent of copying. Also, you must do your writing without direct copying.

Think of MPs and web assignments as being part of the practice for the exam. Many of the problems will be used as a basis for the exam problems themselves. In fact, when it comes time to study, we will likely advise you to redo your MPs and written assignments.

We will be looking for cheating on both assignments and exams. The penalty for being caught cheating a first time -- either sharing your solution or copying anyone or anything else's solution on an exam, or copying anyone else's solution on an assignment without citation -- is that you will receive a negative score for the unit cheated on equal to the value of the unit . An assignment (MP or web assignment) is one unit. A numbered problem on a test, including all its parts, is one unit. The penalty if you are caught cheating a second time, after being informed of the first time, is a grade of F for the class. You should take all reasonable precautions to prevent others from cheating and report any suspected cheating.

All grading is done automatically in PrairieLearn, and you will receive your results for each problem when you press the Save & Grade button. You can see the scores of all past assessments in the PrairieLearn gradebook.

It should be noted, however, that the value for MPs and WAs, their value is the number of points assigned; they are not all valued equally. The score tells you the percentage of the points you received, but you will need to refer back to the assignment itself to view how many points it was worth. There seems to be no way to make PrairieLearn report points rather than scores in the gradebrook. The contribution of the MPs and WAs is the number points earned cumulatively for all MPs and WAs divided by the total points possible, times the percentage of the course the MPs and WAs combined are worth (10% for 3 credit students, and 7.5% for 4 credit students).

Each Midterm will have 90 points and the Final will have 210 points. (All exam points and equal to each other, as all MP and WA points are equal to each other, but MP and WA points are distinct from exam points.)

Below is a table giving the percentage each major category of work in the class contributes to the final grade.

• The OCaml System, release 5.0 Documentation and user's manual by Xavier Leroy (with Damien Doligez, Jacques Garrigue, Didier Rémy and Jérôme Vouillon), from the official INRIA website for OCAML.
• an online book about OCaml from CalTech.
• Modern Compiler Implementation in ML by Andrew Appel. Published by Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-60764-7 (paperback).
• Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools, also known as "The Dragon Book"; by Aho, Sethi, and Ullman. Published by Addison-Wesley. ISBN: 0-201-10088-6.
• Essentials of Programming Languages, 2nd Edition; by Friedman, Wand, and Haynes. Published by MIT Press 2001. ISBN: 0-262-06217-8.
• Advanced Programming Language Design, by Raphael A. Finkel. Addison Wesley Publishing Company, 1996.
• Programming Language Pragmatics, by Michael L. Scott. Morgan Kaufman Publishers, 2000.
• Concepts, Techniques, and Models of Computer Programming Peter Van Roy and Seif Haridi, MIT Press, 2004 ISBN 0-262-22069-5