Affiliation:
1. Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden / University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Abstract
In a dependently typed language, we can guarantee correctness of our programs by providing formal proofs. To check them, the typechecker elaborates these programs and proofs into a low level core language. However, this core language is by nature hard to understand by mere humans, so how can we know we proved the right thing? This question occurs in particular for dependent copattern matching, a powerful language construct for writing programs and proofs by dependent case analysis and mixed induction/coinduction. A definition by copattern matching consists of a list of
clauses
that are elaborated to a
case tree
, which can be further translated to primitive
eliminators
. In previous work this second step has received a lot of attention, but the first step has been mostly ignored so far.
We present an algorithm elaborating definitions by dependent copattern matching to a core language with inductive datatypes, coinductive record types, an identity type, and constants defined by well-typed case trees. To ensure correctness, we prove that elaboration preserves the first-match semantics of the user clauses. Based on this theoretical work, we reimplement the algorithm used by Agda to check left-hand sides of definitions by pattern matching. The new implementation is at the same time more general and less complex, and fixes a number of bugs and usability issues with the old version. Thus we take another step towards the formally verified implementation of a practical dependently typed language.
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
Subject
Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality,Software
Reference34 articles.
1. Wellfounded recursion with copatterns
2. Copatterns
3. Agda development team. 2017. Agda 2.5.3 documentation. http://agda.readthedocs.io/en/v2.5.3/ Agda development team. 2017. Agda 2.5.3 documentation. http://agda.readthedocs.io/en/v2.5.3/
4. Agda issue. 2017a. Disambiguation of type based on pattern leads to non-unique meta solution. (2017). https://github. com/agda/agda/issues/2834 (on the Agda bug tracker). Agda issue. 2017a. Disambiguation of type based on pattern leads to non-unique meta solution. (2017). https://github. com/agda/agda/issues/2834 (on the Agda bug tracker).
5. Agda issue. 2017b. Internal error in src/full/Agda/TypeChecking/Coverage/Match.hs:312. (2017). https://github.com/agda/ agda/issues/2874 (on the Agda bug tracker). Agda issue. 2017b. Internal error in src/full/Agda/TypeChecking/Coverage/Match.hs:312. (2017). https://github.com/agda/ agda/issues/2874 (on the Agda bug tracker).
Cited by
12 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Live Pattern Matching with Typed Holes;Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages;2023-04-06
2. Curiously Empty Intersection of Proof Engineering and Computational Sciences;Computational Methods in Applied Sciences;2023
3. A simpler encoding of indexed types;Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGPLAN International Workshop on Type-Driven Development;2021-08-18
4. Cubical Agda: A dependently typed programming language with univalence and higher inductive types;Journal of Functional Programming;2021
5. Lower your guards: a compositional pattern-match coverage checker;Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages;2020-08-02