Start Interpreters code

Frap.v

@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ Export String Arith Sets Relations Map Var Invariant.
 Require Import List.
 Export List ListNotations.
 Open Scope string_scope.
+Open Scope list_scope.
 
 Ltac inductN n :=
   match goal with
@@ -63,10 +64,14 @@ Ltac linear_arithmetic := intros;
 Ltac equality := congruence.
 
 Ltac cases E :=
-  (is_var E; destruct E)
+  ((is_var E; destruct E)
    || match type of E with
       | {_} + {_} => destruct E
       | _ => let Heq := fresh "Heq" in destruct E eqn:Heq
+      end);
+  repeat match goal with
+         | [ H : _ = left _ |- _ ] => clear H
+         | [ H : _ = right _ |- _ ] => clear H
          end.
 
 Global Opaque max min.

Interpreters.v

@@ -0,0 +1,218 @@
+(** Formal Reasoning About Programs <http://adam.chlipala.net/frap/>
+  * Chapter 3: Semantics via Interpreters
+  * Author: Adam Chlipala
+  * License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ *)
+
+Require Import Frap.
+
+
+(* We begin with a return to our arithmetic language from the last chapter. *)
+Inductive arith : Set :=
+| Const (n : nat)
+| Var (x : var)
+| Plus (e1 e2 : arith)
+| Times (e1 e2 : arith).
+
+Example ex1 := Const 42.
+Example ex2 := Plus (Const 1) (Times (Var "x") (Const 3)).
+
+(* The above definition only explains what programs *look like*.
+ * We also care about what they *mean*.
+ * The natural meaning of an expression is the number it evaluates to.
+ * Actually, it's not quite that simple.
+ * We need to consider the meaning to be a function over a valuation
+ * to the variables, which in turn is itself a function from variable
+ * names to numbers. *)
+Definition valuation := var -> nat.
+
+Fixpoint interp (e : arith) (v : valuation) : nat :=
+  match e with
+  | Const n => n
+  | Var x => v x
+  | Plus e1 e2 => interp e1 v + interp e2 v
+  | Times e1 e2 => interp e1 v * interp e2 v
+  end.
+
+(* Let's sanity-check the interpretation. *)
+Definition valuation0 : valuation :=
+  fun x => if x ==v "x" then 17 else 23.
+
+Compute interp ex1 valuation0.
+Compute interp ex2 valuation0.
+
+(* Here's the silly transformation we defined last time. *)
+Fixpoint commuter (e : arith) : arith :=
+  match e with
+  | Const _ => e
+  | Var _ => e
+  | Plus e1 e2 => Plus (commuter e2) (commuter e1)
+  | Times e1 e2 => Times (commuter e2) (commuter e1)
+  end.
+
+(* Instead of proving various odds-and-ends properties about it,
+ * let's show what we *really* care about: it preserves the
+ * *meanings* of expressions! *)
+Theorem commuter_ok : forall v e, interp (commuter e) v = interp e v.
+Proof.
+  induct e; simplify.
+
+  equality.
+
+  equality.
+
+  linear_arithmetic.
+
+  rewrite IHe1.
+  rewrite IHe2.
+  ring.
+Qed.
+(* Well, that's a relief! ;-) *)
+
+(* Let's also revisit substitution. *)
+Fixpoint substitute (inThis : arith) (replaceThis : var) (withThis : arith) : arith :=
+  match inThis with
+  | Const _ => inThis
+  | Var x => if x ==v replaceThis then withThis else inThis
+  | Plus e1 e2 => Plus (substitute e1 replaceThis withThis) (substitute e2 replaceThis withThis)
+  | Times e1 e2 => Times (substitute e1 replaceThis withThis) (substitute e2 replaceThis withThis)
+  end.
+
+(* The natural semantic correctness condition for substitution,
+ * drawing on a helper function for adding a new mapping to a valuation *)
+Definition extend_valuation (v : valuation) (x : var) (n : nat) : valuation :=
+  fun y => if y ==v x then n else v y.
+
+Theorem substitute_ok : forall v replaceThis withThis inThis,
+  interp (substitute inThis replaceThis withThis) v
+  = interp inThis (extend_valuation v replaceThis (interp withThis v)).
+Proof.
+  induct inThis; simplify; try equality.
+
+  (* One case left after our basic heuristic:
+   * the variable case, naturally!
+   * A little trick: unfold a definition *before* case analysis,
+   * to expose an extra spot where our test expression appears,
+   * so that it can be handled by [cases] at the same time. *)
+  unfold extend_valuation.
+  cases (x ==v replaceThis); simplify; equality.
+Qed.
+(* Great; we seem to have gotten that one right, too. *)
+
+(* Let's also defined a pared-down version of the expression-simplificaton
+ * functions from last chapter. *)
+Fixpoint doSomeArithmetic (e : arith) : arith :=
+  match e with
+  | Const _ => e
+  | Var _ => e
+  | Plus (Const n1) (Const n2) => Const (n1 + n2)
+  | Plus e1 e2 => Plus (doSomeArithmetic e1) (doSomeArithmetic e2)
+  | Times (Const n1) (Const n2) => Const (n1 * n2)
+  | Times e1 e2 => Times (doSomeArithmetic e1) (doSomeArithmetic e2)
+  end.
+
+Theorem doSomeArithmetic_ok : forall e v, interp (doSomeArithmetic e) v = interp e v.
+Proof.
+  induct e; simplify; try equality.
+
+  cases e1; simplify; try equality.
+  cases e2; simplify; equality.
+
+  cases e1; simplify; try equality.
+  cases e2; simplify; equality.
+Qed.
+
+(* Of course, we're going to get bored if we confine ourselves to arithmetic
+ * expressions for the rest of our journey.  Let's get a bit fancier and define
+ * a *stack machine*, related to postfix calculators that some of you may have
+ * experienced. *)
+Inductive instruction :=
+| PushConst (n : nat)
+| PushVar (x : var)
+| Add
+| Multiply.
+
+(* What does it all mean?  An interpreter tells us unambiguously! *)
+Definition run1 (i : instruction) (v : valuation) (stack : list nat) : list nat :=
+  match i with
+  | PushConst n => n :: stack
+  | PushVar x => v x :: stack
+  | Add =>
+    match stack with
+    | arg2 :: arg1 :: stack' => arg1 + arg2 :: stack'
+    | _ => stack (* arbitrary behavior in erroneous case *)
+    end
+  | Multiply =>
+    match stack with
+    | arg2 :: arg1 :: stack' => arg1 * arg2 :: stack'
+    | _ => stack (* arbitrary behavior in erroneous case *)
+    end
+  end.
+
+(* That function explained how to run one instruction.
+ * Here's how to run several of them. *)
+Fixpoint run (is : list instruction) (v : valuation) (stack : list nat) : list nat :=
+  match is with
+  | nil => stack
+  | i :: is' => run is' v (run1 i v stack)
+  end.
+
+(* Instead of writing fiddly stack programs ourselves, let's *compile*
+ * arithmetic expressions into equivalent stack programs. *)
+Fixpoint compile (e : arith) : list instruction :=
+  match e with
+  | Const n => PushConst n :: nil
+  | Var x => PushVar x :: nil
+  | Plus e1 e2 => compile e1 ++ compile e2 ++ Add :: nil
+  | Times e1 e2 => compile e1 ++ compile e2 ++ Multiply :: nil
+  end.
+
+(* Now, of course, we should prove our compiler correct.
+ * Skip down to the next theorem to see the overall correctness statement.
+ * It turns out that we need to strengthen the induction hypothesis with a
+ * lemma, to push the proof through. *)
+Lemma compile_ok' : forall e v is stack, run (compile e ++ is) v stack = run is v (interp e v :: stack).
+Proof.
+  induct e; simplify.
+
+  equality.
+
+  equality.
+
+  (* Here we want to use associativity of [++], to get the conclusion to match
+   * an induction hypothesis.  Let's ask Coq to search its library for lemmas
+   * that would justify such a rewrite, giving a pattern with wildcards, to
+   * specify the essential structure that the rewrite should match. *)
+  SearchRewrite ((_ ++ _) ++ _).
+  (* Ah, we see just the one! *)
+  rewrite app_assoc_reverse.
+  rewrite IHe1.
+  rewrite app_assoc_reverse.
+  rewrite IHe2.
+  simplify.
+  equality.
+
+  rewrite app_assoc_reverse.
+  rewrite IHe1.
+  rewrite app_assoc_reverse.
+  rewrite IHe2.
+  simplify.
+  equality.
+Qed.
+
+(* The overall theorem follows as a simple corollary. *)
+Theorem compile_ok : forall e v, run (compile e) v nil = interp e v :: nil.
+Proof.
+  simplify.
+
+  (* To match the form of our lemma, we need to replace [compile e] with
+   * [compile e ++ nil], adding a "pointless" concatenation of the empty list.
+   * [SearchRewrite] again helps us find a library lemma. *)
+  SearchRewrite (_ ++ nil).
+  rewrite (app_nil_end (compile e)).
+  (* Note that we can use [rewrite] with explicit values of the first few
+   * quantified variables of a lemma.  Otherwise, [rewrite] picks an
+   * unhelpful place to rewrite.  (Try it and see!) *)
+
+  apply compile_ok'.
+  (* Direct appeal to a previously proved lemma *)
+Qed.

_CoqProject

@@ -6,3 +6,4 @@ Relations.v
 Frap.v
 BasicSyntax_template.v
 BasicSyntax.v
+Interpreters.v