Mechanization of Hazelnut, as submitted to POPL 2017
Clone or download
Fetching latest commit…
Cannot retrieve the latest commit at this time.
Permalink
Failed to load latest commit information.
.gitignore
LICENSE
List.agda
Nat.agda
Prelude.agda
README.md
aasubsume-min.agda
all.agda
checks.agda
constructability.agda
core.agda
determinism.agda
examples.agda
judgemental-erase.agda
judgemental-inconsistency.agda
keys.md
moveerase.agda
reachability.agda
sensibility.agda
structural.agda

README.md

agda-popl17

This repository contains the mechanization of Hazelnut and the associated metatheory as submitted to POPL 2017 for artifact evaluation.

The branch sums is the mechanization of the core calculus extended with sum types as described in Section 4 of the paper. It's a conservative extension in the sense that the difference between the branches only adds code for the new constructs: nothing is removed.

The branches master-no-jincon and sums-no-jincon are the same as their namesakes, but with only one definition of type inconsistency. These were not reviewed by the POPL AEC, but are included because they may be of interest. The benefit to this development is that we don't need to reason about proof irrelevance to establish the isomorphism between the two forms of inconsistency; the downside is that the relationship between consistency and inconsistency is less immediately obvious.

All theorems are proven for all branches.

The exact additions can be seen easily with git diff master sums, git diff master sums FILE for a particular file name, or in a slightly prettier way at http://github.com/hazelgrove/agda-popl17/compare/sums under the "Files Changed" tab.

Inspecting The Artifact

In order to inspect the artifact, the first thing you need to do is download the code in this repository. You can either clone the repository and switch between branches, or download zip files of both branches through the github web interface.

In order to actually check the proofs, you need two tools: the Haskell Platform and Agda. Both are available for most modern operating systems and have extensive documentation for installation at their home sites:

We know the Agda in this artifact to load cleanly under Agda version 2.5.1.1, which is the most recent stable version at the time of submission. As research software, Agda frequently breaks backwards and forwards compatibility, so it may or may not load under other versions.

Once Agda has been installed, the command agda all.agda run in the appropriate directory will cause Agda to typecheck our artifact. On a modern machine, this takes about 10 seconds for the master branch and about 14 for the extension with sums.

For syntax hilighting and other support, Agda files can be viewed in emacs, vim, or here on github.

Where To Find Each Theorem and Claim

Every theorem in the paper is proven in the mechanization.

In most cases this entails proving a few lemmas about the particular representations defined in core.agda or how they interact. We have tried to name these lemmas in suggestive ways and tried to locate them near where they're used, but it's the nature of such things to end up a little bit spread out. Each lemma has a quick slogan of what it roughly shows over its definition.

Here is where to find each theorem:

  • Theorem 1, Action Sensibility, is in sensibility.agda, given by actsense-synth and actsense-ana.

  • Theorem 2, Movement Erasure Invariance, is in moveerase.agda, given by moveeraset, moveerase-synth, and moveerase-ana.

  • Theorem 3, Reachability, is in reachability.agda, given by reachability-types, reachability-synth, and reachability-ana.

  • Theorem 4, Reach Up, is also in reachability.agda, given by reachup-types, reachup-synth, and reachup-ana.

  • Theorem 5, Reach Down, is also in reachability.agda, given by reachdown-types, reachdown-synth, and reachdown-ana.

  • Theorem 6, Constructability, is in constructability.agda. The clauses are implemented by construct-type, construct-synth and construct-ana.

  • Theorem 7, Type Action Determinism, is in determinism.agda, given by actdet-type.

  • Theorem 8, Expression Action Determinism, is also in determinism.agda, given by actdet-synth and actdet-ana. The predicate on derivations is given in aasubsume-min.agda by aasubmin-synth and aasubmin-ana.

There are also several places where we refer the reader to the mechanization for more details. Here is where to look for each of these:

  • The missing rules for z-expression cursor movement mentioned on page 2 are present in the version of Figure 1 and Figure 2 in examples.agda.

  • The proof that the judgements that mention contexts obey weakening, exchange, and contraction mentioned on page 3 is in structural.agda.

  • The proof that the judgemental inconsistency is indeed the negation of consistency mentioned on page 5 is in judgemental-inconsistency.agda.

  • The predicate on derivations mentioned on page 8 is in aasubsume-min.agda.

  • The extension to the language mentioned on page 8 is in the sums branch of this repository.

File Descriptions

Here is a break down of what is in each file, listed in ls order. core.agda is the best file to start with.

  • LICENSE is the license for this work.

  • List.agda, Nat.agda, and, Prelude.agda define common data structures, types, notational conveniences, and lemmas not specific to Hazelnut.

  • README.md is this file you're reading right now.

  • aasubsume-min.agda describes a mapping from action derivations to a subset of the same type that is deterministic. This is part of the restricted form of determinism that we've proven.

  • all.agda acts as an ad-hoc make file for the project. If you run agda all.agda at the command line in a clone with no .agdai files in the directory, it will check all the proofs from scratch.

  • checks.agda defines the iterated action semantics and the lemmas that lift the zipper rules to it.

  • constructability.agda gives the proof of constructability.

  • core.agda is the best file to start with. It gives the basic definitions and syntax for the whole language in the order listed in the paper. The syntax of Agda forces us to name each rule in the paper when they have just numbers in the text, but we have tried to give them reasonably mnemonic names.

  • determinism.agda proves that the action semantics, modulo the predicate defined in aasubsume-min.agda, are deterministic.

  • examples.agda is a handful of small examples of the judgements and definitions from the other files in actions, showing small typing and action semantics derivations to help intuition. This includes a full version of both Figure 1 and Figure 2 from the paper text.

  • judgemental-erase.agda defines the function form of cursor erasure given in the paper and proves it isomorphic to the judgemental form given in core.agda. It also defines lemmas to move between them. Since we prove them to be isomorphic, we use both forms throughout, choosing whichever one is more convenient in a given situation.

  • judgemental-inconsistency.agda defines a judgemental form of type inconsistency and characterizes its relationship to the functional form used throughout the development, as discussed in core.agda.

  • keys.md is a list of emacs agda-mode key chords to enter the unicode characters we use throughout the development.

  • moveerase.agda gives the proof of movement erasure invariance.

  • reachability.agda gives the proof of reachability.

  • sensibility.agda gives the proof of action sensibility.

  • structural.agda has proofs for the standard structural properties of weakening, exchange, and contraction for each of the the four context-sensitive judgements.

Assumptions and Representation Decisions

  • To keep the mechanization tidy, we make a pretty strong assumption about variables in terms called Barendregt's convention.

    That is, we represent variables with just natural numbers, and assume that all terms are in something like a de Bruijn normal form with respect to these: if a variable with name n ever appears anywhere, it's always the same variable.

    This is reflected in the mechanization mostly by a few apartness premises in the rules that are omitted in the on-paper notation.

    The problem with this is that it's not true about arbitrary well-typed terms of a language. There is an injection from arbitrary terms to Barendregt-friendly ones, so it's sufficient. That injection is a whole-program transformation that amounts to careful use of alpha equivalence, so for the purpose of the current mechanization our approach is sufficient.

    A more robust way to do this would be to implement an ABT library in Agda, likely with de Bruijn indices under the hood. That's a meaningful project all by itself, and not within the scope of this effort.

  • Contexts are implemented as a function from variable names to possible types. This encodes the idea of contexts as a finite mapping neatly without getting the somewhat unwieldy Agda standard library involved and obfuscating the proof text.

    One concern with this representation is whether or not it's really constructive: there are some theorems about contexts that are only provably about this representation if you have function extensionality, which is independent from the logic of Agda.

    In this case, however, the functions that we build as contexts always have a finite domain and codomain. Function extensionality is provable under that restriction, but the restriction is not reflected in the type of contexts. It could be made explicit by using mappings from Fin n → τ̇ or paired with a maximum-name-used-so-far. We have not needed to do that yet, but it is an easy refactoring if we do in the future.

  • The notion of consistency that we inherit from the work on gradual typing is deliberately not transitive, so it can't be gracefully encoded with equality using any of the common techniques involving the module system or dependent types. Therefore it is given by a type, like all the other judgements.

    It's possible that there is a more elegant way to encode compatibility with the homotopy type theoretic notion of a higher inductive type (HIT) but we haven't explored that at all.

  • Type inconsistency is not its own judgement, but rather represented as {t1 t2 : ·τ} → t1 ~ t2 → ⊥, which is the standard way to represent negation.

    For our purposes, this means the same thing as the judgement in the text, but saves us proving some lemmas describing the coherence between two types that would result from the direct translation into Agda.

    The two views are shown isomorphic assuming that proofs of inconsistency at arrow types are proof-irrelevant in judgemental-inconsistency.agda.

  • Each of the clauses of the theorems in the text are broken off into separate functions in the mechanization. This is because the clauses are mutually recursive, following the mutual recursion of the bidirectional typing judgements.

  • The sequence of conjunctions in the antecedents of the theorems have been curried into a sequence of implications instead, which is a benign transformation that simplifies the syntax of the mechanization substantially.

  • In the proofs of determinism, there's a fair amount of repeated argumentation. Agda's case exhaustiveness checking isn't sharp enough to know that two arguments of the same type in adjacent positions might be treated up to symmetry. In another language, we'd just write f x y => f y x as a default case, but this doesn't pass the termination checker for obvious reasons. The cases that are particularly verbose are diked out into a lemma; the rest are just repeated in place.

  • The paper text does not specify exactly what the base type num is. In the mechanization we use unary natural numbers, specifically the type Nat. The only property that we require of num is that equality be decidable, so another choice would have been to abstract the rules over anything that happens to have decidable equality--and maybe anything that has enough algebraic structure to support addition.

    While Agda does provide tools to take this other approach, we chose to use natural numbers as a surrogate instead to keep the proofs smaller and more focused on the properties we're interested in proving.