Stlc.v

(** * Stlc: The Simply Typed Lambda-Calculus *)

Require Import Maps.
Require Import Smallstep.
Require Import Types.

(* ################################################################# *)
(** * The Simply Typed Lambda-Calculus *)

(** The simply typed lambda-calculus (STLC) is a tiny core
    calculus embodying the key concept of _functional abstraction_,
    which shows up in pretty much every real-world programming
    language in some form (functions, procedures, methods, etc.).

    We will follow exactly the same pattern as in the previous chapter
    when formalizing this calculus (syntax, small-step semantics,
    typing rules) and its main properties (progress and preservation).
    The new technical challenges arise from the mechanisms of
    _variable binding_ and _substitution_.  It which will take some
    work to deal with these. *)

(* ================================================================= *)
(** ** Overview *)

(** The STLC is built on some collection of _base types_: 
    booleans, numbers, strings, etc.  The exact choice of base types
    doesn't matter much -- the construction of the language and its
    theoretical properties work out the same no matter what we
    choose -- so for the sake of brevity let's take just [Bool] for
    the moment.  At the end of the chapter we'll see how to add more
    base types, and in later chapters we'll enrich the pure STLC with
    other useful constructs like pairs, records, subtyping, and
    mutable state.

    Starting from boolean constants and conditionals, we add three
    things:
        - variables
        - function abstractions
        - application

    This gives us the following collection of abstract syntax
    constructors (written out first in informal BNF notation -- we'll
    formalize it below). *)
(**

       t ::= x                       variable
           | \x:T1.t2                abstraction
           | t1 t2                   application
           | true                    constant true
           | false                   constant false
           | if t1 then t2 else t3   conditional
*)

(** The [\] symbol in a function abstraction [\x:T1.t2] is generally
    written as a Greek letter "lambda" (hence the name of the
    calculus).  The variable [x] is called the _parameter_ to the
    function; the term [t2] is its _body_.  The annotation [:T1]
    specifies the type of arguments that the function can be applied
    to. *)

(** Some examples:

      - [\x:Bool. x]

        The identity function for booleans.

      - [(\x:Bool. x) true]

        The identity function for booleans, applied to the boolean [true].

      - [\x:Bool. if x then false else true]

        The boolean "not" function.

      - [\x:Bool. true]

        The constant function that takes every (boolean) argument to
        [true]. *)
(**
      - [\x:Bool. \y:Bool. x]

        A two-argument function that takes two booleans and returns
        the first one.  (As in Coq, a two-argument function is really
        a one-argument function whose body is also a one-argument
        function.)

      - [(\x:Bool. \y:Bool. x) false true]

        A two-argument function that takes two booleans and returns
        the first one, applied to the booleans [false] and [true].

        As in Coq, application associates to the left -- i.e., this
        expression is parsed as [((\x:Bool. \y:Bool. x) false) true].

      - [\f:Bool->Bool. f (f true)]

        A higher-order function that takes a _function_ [f] (from
        booleans to booleans) as an argument, applies [f] to [true],
        and applies [f] again to the result.

      - [(\f:Bool->Bool. f (f true)) (\x:Bool. false)]

        The same higher-order function, applied to the constantly
        [false] function. *)

(** As the last several examples show, the STLC is a language of
    _higher-order_ functions: we can write down functions that take
    other functions as arguments and/or return other functions as
    results.

    The STLC doesn't provide any primitive syntax for defining _named_
    functions -- all functions are "anonymous."  We'll see in chapter
    [MoreStlc] that it is easy to add named functions to what we've
    got -- indeed, the fundamental naming and binding mechanisms are
    exactly the same.

    The _types_ of the STLC include [Bool], which classifies the
    boolean constants [true] and [false] as well as more complex
    computations that yield booleans, plus _arrow types_ that classify
    functions. *)
(**

      T ::= Bool
          | T1 -> T2

    For example:

      - [\x:Bool. false] has type [Bool->Bool]

      - [\x:Bool. x] has type [Bool->Bool]

      - [(\x:Bool. x) true] has type [Bool]

      - [\x:Bool. \y:Bool. x] has type [Bool->Bool->Bool] 
                              (i.e., [Bool -> (Bool->Bool)])

      - [(\x:Bool. \y:Bool. x) false] has type [Bool->Bool]

      - [(\x:Bool. \y:Bool. x) false true] has type [Bool] *)


(* ================================================================= *)
(** ** Syntax *)

(** We begin by formalizing the syntax of the STLC. *)

Module STLC.

(* ----------------------------------------------------------------- *)
(** *** Types *)

Inductive ty : Type :=
  | TBool  : ty
  | TArrow : ty -> ty -> ty.

(* ----------------------------------------------------------------- *)
(** *** Terms *)

Inductive tm : Type :=
  | tvar : id -> tm
  | tapp : tm -> tm -> tm
  | tabs : id -> ty -> tm -> tm
  | ttrue : tm
  | tfalse : tm
  | tif : tm -> tm -> tm -> tm.

(** Note that an abstraction [\x:T.t] (formally, [tabs x T t]) is
    always annotated with the type [T] of its parameter, in contrast
    to Coq (and other functional languages like ML, Haskell, etc.),
    which use _type inference_ to fill in missing annotations.  We're
    not considering type inference here. *)

(** Some examples... *)

Definition x := (Id 0).
Definition y := (Id 1).
Definition z := (Id 2).
Hint Unfold x.
Hint Unfold y.
Hint Unfold z.

(** [idB = \x:Bool. x] *)

Notation idB :=
  (tabs x TBool (tvar x)).

(** [idBB = \x:Bool->Bool. x] *)

Notation idBB :=
  (tabs x (TArrow TBool TBool) (tvar x)).

(** [idBBBB = \x:(Bool->Bool) -> (Bool->Bool). x] *)

Notation idBBBB :=
  (tabs x (TArrow (TArrow TBool TBool)
                      (TArrow TBool TBool))
    (tvar x)).

(** [k = \x:Bool. \y:Bool. x] *)

Notation k := (tabs x TBool (tabs y TBool (tvar x))).

(** [notB = \x:Bool. if x then false else true] *)

Notation notB := (tabs x TBool (tif (tvar x) tfalse ttrue)).

(** (We write these as [Notation]s rather than [Definition]s to make
    things easier for [auto].) *)

(* ================================================================= *)
(** ** Operational Semantics *)

(** To define the small-step semantics of STLC terms, we begin,
    as always, by defining the set of values.  Next, we define the
    critical notions of _free variables_ and _substitution_, which are
    used in the reduction rule for application expressions.  And
    finally we give the small-step relation itself. *)

(* ----------------------------------------------------------------- *)
(** *** Values *)

(** To define the values of the STLC, we have a few cases to consider.

    First, for the boolean part of the language, the situation is
    clear: [true] and [false] are the only values.  An [if]
    expression is never a value. *)

(** Second, an application is clearly not a value: It represents a
    function being invoked on some argument, which clearly still has
    work left to do. *)

(** Third, for abstractions, we have a choice:

      - We can say that [\x:T. t1] is a value only when [t1] is a
        value -- i.e., only if the function's body has been
        reduced (as much as it can be without knowing what argument it
        is going to be applied to).

      - Or we can say that [\x:T. t1] is always a value, no matter
        whether [t1] is one or not -- in other words, we can say that
        reduction stops at abstractions.

    Coq, in its built-in functional programming langauge Gallina,
    makes the first choice -- for example,

         Compute (fun x:bool => 3 + 4)

    yields [fun x:bool => 7].

    Most real-world functional programming languages make the second
    choice -- reduction of a function's body only begins when the
    function is actually applied to an argument.  We also make the
    second choice here. *)

Inductive value : tm -> Prop :=
  | v_abs : forall x T t,
      value (tabs x T t)
  | v_true :
      value ttrue
  | v_false :
      value tfalse.

Hint Constructors value.

(** Finally, we must consider what constitutes a _complete_ program.

    Intuitively, a "complete program" must not refer to any undefined
    variables.  We'll see shortly how to define the _free_ variables
    in a STLC term.  A complete program is _closed_ -- that is, it
    contains no free variables.

    Having made the choice not to reduce under abstractions, we don't
    need to worry about whether variables are values, since we'll
    always be reducing programs "from the outside in," and that means
    the [step] relation will always be working with closed terms.  *)

(* ----------------------------------------------------------------- *)
(** *** Substitution *)

(** Now we come to the heart of the STLC: the operation of
    substituting one term for a variable in another term.  This
    operation is used below to define the operational semantics of
    function application, where we will need to substitute the
    argument term for the function parameter in the function's body.
    For example, we reduce

       (\x:Bool. if x then true else x) false

    to

       if false then true else false

    by substituting [false] for the parameter [x] in the body of the
    function.

    In general, we need to be able to substitute some given term [s]
    for occurrences of some variable [x] in another term [t].  In
    informal discussions, this is usually written [ [x:=s]t ] and
    pronounced "substitute [x] with [s] in [t]." *)

(** Here are some examples:

      - [[x:=true] (if x then x else false)] 
           yields [if true then true else false]

      - [[x:=true] x] yields [true]

      - [[x:=true] (if x then x else y)] yields [if true then true else y]

      - [[x:=true] y] yields [y]

      - [[x:=true] false] yields [false] (vacuous substitution)

      - [[x:=true] (\y:Bool. if y then x else false)] 
           yields [\y:Bool. if y then true else false]

      - [[x:=true] (\y:Bool. x)] yields [\y:Bool. true]

      - [[x:=true] (\y:Bool. y)] yields [\y:Bool. y]

      - [[x:=true] (\x:Bool. x)] yields [\x:Bool. x]

    The last example is very important: substituting [x] with [true] in
    [\x:Bool. x] does _not_ yield [\x:Bool. true]!  The reason for
    this is that the [x] in the body of [\x:Bool. x] is _bound_ by the
    abstraction: it is a new, local name that just happens to be
    spelled the same as some global name [x]. *)

(** Here is the definition, informally...

       [x:=s]x               = s
       [x:=s]y               = y                      if x <> y
       [x:=s](\x:T11. t12)   = \x:T11. t12
       [x:=s](\y:T11. t12)   = \y:T11. [x:=s]t12      if x <> y
       [x:=s](t1 t2)         = ([x:=s]t1) ([x:=s]t2)
       [x:=s]true            = true
       [x:=s]false           = false
       [x:=s](if t1 then t2 else t3) =
                       if [x:=s]t1 then [x:=s]t2 else [x:=s]t3
*)

(** ... and formally: *)

Reserved Notation "'[' x ':=' s ']' t" (at level 20).

Fixpoint subst (x:id) (s:tm) (t:tm) : tm :=
  match t with
  | tvar x' =>
      if beq_id x x' then s else t
  | tabs x' T t1 =>
      tabs x' T (if beq_id x x' then t1 else ([x:=s] t1))
  | tapp t1 t2 =>
      tapp ([x:=s] t1) ([x:=s] t2)
  | ttrue =>
      ttrue
  | tfalse =>
      tfalse
  | tif t1 t2 t3 =>
      tif ([x:=s] t1) ([x:=s] t2) ([x:=s] t3)
  end

where "'[' x ':=' s ']' t" := (subst x s t).

(** _Technical note_: Substitution becomes trickier to define if we
    consider the case where [s], the term being substituted for a
    variable in some other term, may itself contain free variables.
    Since we are only interested here in defining the [step] relation
    on closed terms (i.e., terms like [\x:Bool. x] that include
    binders for all of the variables they mention), we can avoid this
    extra complexity here, but it must be dealt with when formalizing
    richer languages. *)

(** **** Exercise: 3 stars (substi)  *)
(** The definition that we gave above uses Coq's [Fixpoint] facility
    to define substitution as a _function_.  Suppose, instead, we
    wanted to define substitution as an inductive _relation_ [substi].
    We've begun the definition by providing the [Inductive] header and
    one of the constructors; your job is to fill in the rest of the
    constructors and prove that the relation you've defined coincides
    with the function given above. *)

Inductive substi (s:tm) (x:id) : tm -> tm -> Prop :=
  | s_var1 :
      substi s x (tvar x) s
  (* FILL IN HERE *)
.

Hint Constructors substi.

Theorem substi_correct : forall s x t t',
  [x:=s]t = t' <-> substi s x t t'.
Proof.
  (* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.
(** [] *)

(* ----------------------------------------------------------------- *)
(** *** Reduction *)

(** The small-step reduction relation for STLC now follows the
    same pattern as the ones we have seen before.  Intuitively, to
    reduce a function application, we first reduce its left-hand
    side (the function) until it becomes an abstraction; then we
    reduce its right-hand side (the argument) until it is also a
    value; and finally we substitute the argument for the bound
    variable in the body of the abstraction.  This last rule, written
    informally as

      (\x:T.t12) v2 ==> [x:=v2]t12

    is traditionally called "beta-reduction". *)

(** 
                               value v2
                     ----------------------------                   (ST_AppAbs)
                     (\x:T.t12) v2 ==> [x:=v2]t12

                              t1 ==> t1'
                           ----------------                           (ST_App1)
                           t1 t2 ==> t1' t2

                              value v1
                              t2 ==> t2'
                           ----------------                           (ST_App2)
                           v1 t2 ==> v1 t2'
*)
(** ... plus the usual rules for booleans:

                    --------------------------------                (ST_IfTrue)
                    (if true then t1 else t2) ==> t1

                    ---------------------------------              (ST_IfFalse)
                    (if false then t1 else t2) ==> t2

                              t1 ==> t1'
         ----------------------------------------------------           (ST_If)
         (if t1 then t2 else t3) ==> (if t1' then t2 else t3)
*)

(** Formally: *)

Reserved Notation "t1 '==>' t2" (at level 40).

Inductive step : tm -> tm -> Prop :=
  | ST_AppAbs : forall x T t12 v2,
         value v2 ->
         (tapp (tabs x T t12) v2) ==> [x:=v2]t12
  | ST_App1 : forall t1 t1' t2,
         t1 ==> t1' ->
         tapp t1 t2 ==> tapp t1' t2
  | ST_App2 : forall v1 t2 t2',
         value v1 ->
         t2 ==> t2' ->
         tapp v1 t2 ==> tapp v1  t2'
  | ST_IfTrue : forall t1 t2,
      (tif ttrue t1 t2) ==> t1
  | ST_IfFalse : forall t1 t2,
      (tif tfalse t1 t2) ==> t2
  | ST_If : forall t1 t1' t2 t3,
      t1 ==> t1' ->
      (tif t1 t2 t3) ==> (tif t1' t2 t3)

where "t1 '==>' t2" := (step t1 t2).

Hint Constructors step.

Notation multistep := (multi step).
Notation "t1 '==>*' t2" := (multistep t1 t2) (at level 40).

(* ----------------------------------------------------------------- *)
(** *** Examples *)

(** Example:

      ((\x:Bool->Bool. x) (\x:Bool. x)) ==>* (\x:Bool. x)

    i.e.,

      (idBB idB) ==>* idB
*)

Lemma step_example1 :
  (tapp idBB idB) ==>* idB.
Proof.
  eapply multi_step.
    apply ST_AppAbs.
    apply v_abs.
  simpl.
  apply multi_refl.  Qed.

(** Example:

      ((\x:Bool->Bool. x) ((\x:Bool->Bool. x) (\x:Bool. x)))
            ==>* (\x:Bool. x)

    i.e.,

      (idBB (idBB idB)) ==>* idB.
*)

Lemma step_example2 :
  (tapp idBB (tapp idBB idB)) ==>* idB.
Proof.
  eapply multi_step.
    apply ST_App2. auto.
    apply ST_AppAbs. auto.
  eapply multi_step.
    apply ST_AppAbs. simpl. auto.
  simpl. apply multi_refl.  Qed.

(** Example:

      ((\x:Bool->Bool. x) (\x:Bool. if x then false
                                    else true)) true)
            ==>* false

    i.e.,

       ((idBB notB) ttrue) ==>* tfalse.
*)

Lemma step_example3 :
  tapp (tapp idBB notB) ttrue ==>* tfalse.
Proof.
  eapply multi_step.
    apply ST_App1. apply ST_AppAbs. auto. simpl.
  eapply multi_step.
    apply ST_AppAbs. auto. simpl.
  eapply multi_step.
    apply ST_IfTrue. apply multi_refl.  Qed.

(** Example:

((\x:Bool -> Bool. x) ((\x:Bool. if x then false
                               else true) true))
      ==>* false

i.e.,

  (idBB (notB ttrue)) ==>* tfalse.
*)

Lemma step_example4 :
  tapp idBB (tapp notB ttrue) ==>* tfalse.
Proof.
  eapply multi_step.
    apply ST_App2. auto.
    apply ST_AppAbs. auto. simpl.
  eapply multi_step.
    apply ST_App2. auto.
    apply ST_IfTrue.
  eapply multi_step.
    apply ST_AppAbs. auto. simpl.
  apply multi_refl.  Qed.

(** We can use the [normalize] tactic defined in the [Types] chapter
    to simplify these proofs. *)

Lemma step_example1' :
  (tapp idBB idB) ==>* idB.
Proof. normalize.  Qed.

Lemma step_example2' :
  (tapp idBB (tapp idBB idB)) ==>* idB.
Proof. normalize. Qed.

Lemma step_example3' :
  tapp (tapp idBB notB) ttrue ==>* tfalse.
Proof. normalize.  Qed.

Lemma step_example4' :
  tapp idBB (tapp notB ttrue) ==>* tfalse.
Proof. normalize.  Qed.

(** **** Exercise: 2 stars (step_example3)  *)
(** Try to do this one both with and without [normalize]. *)

Lemma step_example5 :
       (tapp (tapp idBBBB idBB) idB)
  ==>* idB.
Proof.
  (* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.

Lemma step_example5_with_normalize :
       (tapp (tapp idBBBB idBB) idB)
  ==>* idB.
Proof.
  (* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.
(** [] *)

(* ================================================================= *)
(** ** Typing *)

(** Next we consider the typing relation of the STLC. *)

(* ----------------------------------------------------------------- *)
(** *** Contexts *)

(** _Question_: What is the type of the term "[x y]"?

    _Answer_: It depends on the types of [x] and [y]!

    I.e., in order to assign a type to a term, we need to know
    what assumptions we should make about the types of its free
    variables.

    This leads us to a three-place _typing judgment_, informally
    written [Gamma |- t \in T], where [Gamma] is a
    "typing context" -- a mapping from variables to their types. *)

(** Informally, we'll write [Gamma, x:T] for "extend the partial
    function [Gamma] to also map [x] to [T]."  Formally, we use the
    function [extend] to add a binding to a partial map. *)

Definition context := partial_map ty.

(* ----------------------------------------------------------------- *)
(** *** Typing Relation *)

(** 
                             Gamma x = T
                            --------------                              (T_Var)
                            Gamma |- x \in T

                      Gamma , x:T11 |- t12 \in T12
                     ----------------------------                       (T_Abs)
                     Gamma |- \x:T11.t12 \in T11->T12

                        Gamma |- t1 \in T11->T12
                          Gamma |- t2 \in T11
                        ----------------------                          (T_App)
                         Gamma |- t1 t2 \in T12

                         --------------------                          (T_True)
                         Gamma |- true \in Bool

                        ---------------------                         (T_False)
                        Gamma |- false \in Bool

       Gamma |- t1 \in Bool    Gamma |- t2 \in T    Gamma |- t3 \in T
       --------------------------------------------------------          (T_If)
                  Gamma |- if t1 then t2 else t3 \in T


    We can read the three-place relation [Gamma |- t \in T] as:
    "to the term [t] we can assign the type [T] using as types for
    the free variables of [t] the ones specified in the context
    [Gamma]." *)

Reserved Notation "Gamma '|-' t '\in' T" (at level 40).

Inductive has_type : context -> tm -> ty -> Prop :=
  | T_Var : forall Gamma x T,
      Gamma x = Some T ->
      Gamma |- tvar x \in T
  | T_Abs : forall Gamma x T11 T12 t12,
      update Gamma x T11 |- t12 \in T12 ->
      Gamma |- tabs x T11 t12 \in TArrow T11 T12
  | T_App : forall T11 T12 Gamma t1 t2,
      Gamma |- t1 \in TArrow T11 T12 ->
      Gamma |- t2 \in T11 ->
      Gamma |- tapp t1 t2 \in T12
  | T_True : forall Gamma,
       Gamma |- ttrue \in TBool
  | T_False : forall Gamma,
       Gamma |- tfalse \in TBool
  | T_If : forall t1 t2 t3 T Gamma,
       Gamma |- t1 \in TBool ->
       Gamma |- t2 \in T ->
       Gamma |- t3 \in T ->
       Gamma |- tif t1 t2 t3 \in T

where "Gamma '|-' t '\in' T" := (has_type Gamma t T).

Hint Constructors has_type.

(* ----------------------------------------------------------------- *)
(** *** Examples *)

Example typing_example_1 :
  empty |- tabs x TBool (tvar x) \in TArrow TBool TBool.
Proof.
  apply T_Abs. apply T_Var. reflexivity.  Qed.

(** Note that since we added the [has_type] constructors to the hints
    database, auto can actually solve this one immediately. *)

Example typing_example_1' :
  empty |- tabs x TBool (tvar x) \in TArrow TBool TBool.
Proof. auto.  Qed.

(** Another example:

       empty |- \x:A. \y:A->A. y (y x))
             \in A -> (A->A) -> A.
*)

Example typing_example_2 :
  empty |-
    (tabs x TBool
       (tabs y (TArrow TBool TBool)
          (tapp (tvar y) (tapp (tvar y) (tvar x))))) \in
    (TArrow TBool (TArrow (TArrow TBool TBool) TBool)).
Proof with auto using update_eq.
  apply T_Abs.
  apply T_Abs.
  eapply T_App. apply T_Var...
  eapply T_App. apply T_Var...
  apply T_Var...
Qed.

(** **** Exercise: 2 stars, optional (typing_example_2_full)  *)
(** Prove the same result without using [auto], [eauto], or
    [eapply] (or [...]). *)

Example typing_example_2_full :
  empty |-
    (tabs x TBool
       (tabs y (TArrow TBool TBool)
          (tapp (tvar y) (tapp (tvar y) (tvar x))))) \in
    (TArrow TBool (TArrow (TArrow TBool TBool) TBool)).
Proof.
  (* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.
(** [] *)

(** **** Exercise: 2 stars (typing_example_3)  *)
(** Formally prove the following typing derivation holds: *)
(** 
       empty |- \x:Bool->B. \y:Bool->Bool. \z:Bool.
                   y (x z)
             \in T.
*)

Example typing_example_3 :
  exists T,
    empty |-
      (tabs x (TArrow TBool TBool)
         (tabs y (TArrow TBool TBool)
            (tabs z TBool
               (tapp (tvar y) (tapp (tvar x) (tvar z)))))) \in
      T.
Proof with auto.
  (* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.
(** [] *)

(** We can also show that terms are _not_ typable.  For example, let's
    formally check that there is no typing derivation assigning a type
    to the term [\x:Bool. \y:Bool, x y] -- i.e.,

    ~ exists T,
        empty |- \x:Bool. \y:Bool, x y : T.
*)

Example typing_nonexample_1 :
  ~ exists T,
      empty |-
        (tabs x TBool
            (tabs y TBool
               (tapp (tvar x) (tvar y)))) \in
        T.
Proof.
  intros Hc. inversion Hc.
  (* The [clear] tactic is useful here for tidying away bits of
     the context that we're not going to need again. *)
  inversion H. subst. clear H.
  inversion H5. subst. clear H5.
  inversion H4. subst. clear H4.
  inversion H2. subst. clear H2.
  inversion H5. subst. clear H5.
  inversion H1.  Qed.

(** **** Exercise: 3 stars, optional (typing_nonexample_3)  *)
(** Another nonexample:

    ~ (exists S, exists T,
          empty |- \x:S. x x \in T).
*)

Example typing_nonexample_3 :
  ~ (exists S, exists T,
        empty |-
          (tabs x S
             (tapp (tvar x) (tvar x))) \in
          T).
Proof.
  (* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.
(** [] *)

End STLC.

(** $Date: 2016-05-26 17:51:14 -0400 (Thu, 26 May 2016) $ *)