Posted by Jesper on September 22, 2018
It has been a while since my last (and first) post, so here is a new one about this year’s ICFP paper by Andreas Abel and me, titled “Elaborating Dependent (Co)pattern Matching” (pdf). Dependent pattern matching and copattern matching is one of Agda’s coolest features. It is also a topic very close to my heart since I spend most of my PhD years on the topic.
My goal in this blog post is not to go into the theoretical details, you can find those in the paper. Instead, I want to go a bit more into the reasons why I think this work is important and some unexpected discoveries I made while working on the paper.
Prerequisites. I’ll assume you have used a proof assistant with dependent pattern matching (such as Agda, Idris, or the Equations package for Coq) at least a few times, but I won’t assume any knowledge about the Agda internals.
How to trust your type system
When we use a typechecker or a proof assistant, it is fundamentally because we don’t trust ourselves enough (or we can’t be bothered to) to check whether all the details of a program or proof make sense. Their usefulness thus depends directly on our ability to trust them. But why do we believe we can in fact trust them: is it based on science or on faith? I claim that currently, we are somewhere in between these two. Let me explain why.
A typical dependently typed programming language / proof assistant (be it Agda, Coq, Idris, or even Haskell) actually consists of two languages: a high-level surface language and a lower-level core language. The surface language usually has many convenience features such as implicit arguments, named variables, pattern matching, a tactic system, etc. On the other hand, the core language has none of these and is kept as small as possible on purpose. These core languages have often been studied in great detail for decades and (while there are still many new discoveries to be made) they lie firmly in the camp of science.
The process of translating from surface to core language is called elaboration. It includes many steps such as scope checking, type checking, higher-order unification for checking constraints and figuring out implicit arguments, and running tactics. The goals of elaboration are twofold:
to check that the user-written code (in the surface language) is correct, and
to generate the low-level program (in the core language) which can then be executed (if you are in the business of running your programs, that is).
In Agda, currently only a very small part of the core language can be typechecked independently, so we need to trust the elaboration process. This elaboration is a big, ugly mess of semi-imperative Haskell code with lots of unsafe features and no real specification. This is clearly not based on any rational science, only faith enables us to use Agda while keeping our sanity.
In other languages—such as Coq—the generated core can be checked independently, and in fact it is checked at every
defined. So should Agda follow Coq and get a proper core language? While I think this is a good idea (our paper actually takes a step in that direction), I don’t think that’s enough.
Suppose in extremis that the elaborator would translate every type to the unit type
⊤, and every term to the trivial proof
tt. Then all the generated code is certainly type-correct, but it is as certainly not what we want! Of course, in reality mistakes in the elaboration process are never this blatant, but they still happen and may result in type-correct yet meaningless code being generated. The message is thus:
Even with a trusted core language and double-checking of all generated code, the elaborator is still part of the trusted kernel!
(If you’re using Coq or Agda just as a theorem prover and you don’t care about the actual proof term, you still have to trust the elaborator to preserve the meaning of the theorem statement, which can be a complex expression itself).
So if we must rely on the correctness of elaboration, what can we do to increase our trust in it? Well, eat our own dogfood and formally verify it of course. Unfortunately, the current state of Agda is pretty far from the point where it would be feasible to verify anything about it (remember it doesn’t even have a proper core language?). So the first step will be more modest: take a small part of the elaboration process, specify what properties it ought to have, and prove that they are indeed satisfied by this small part.
Elaborating pattern matching
Let’s get to the actual topic of the paper: dependent pattern matching. Dependent pattern matching provides a very convenient syntax for defining new functions (and, through the Curry-Howard correspondence, proofs) by case analysis and recursion. A big part of the power of dependent pattern matching comes from the unification algorithm it employs for specializing types to each specific case and to rule out impossible cases. This unification algorithm was the main topic of my PhD thesis, but here I want to talk about a different aspect.
Pattern matching is one of these features that are present in the surface language but are translated away by elaboration. In particular, the elaboration of a function by dependent pattern matching proceeds in two steps: first, the clauses written by the user are translated to a case tree, and then this case tree can be further translated to the primitive eliminators provided by the core language (for example CIC for Coq). Agda skips the second step and uses case trees directly in its internal language instead.
The second step of this translation has been studied extensively in the past: by Conor McBride, Healfdene Goguen and James McKinna for a type theory with UIP (uniqueness of identity proofs) and by me and Dominique Devriese in the general case. On the other hand, no-one ever really formalized or proved anything about the first step. You guessed it: that’s exactly what we do in our new paper.
In order to prove anything about the elaboration process, we need to formalize it in much greater detail than is usually done. Finding the right judgement forms was actually the main challenge when writing the paper; once we got them right most of the proofs followed naturally! At the same time, having a very precise description of the elaboration process helps a lot when actually implementing the algorithm for Agda. So formalizing elaboration is a big win from both the theoretical and the practical side of things!
For example, to prove that the case trees produced by elaboration are well-typed, it is necessary to have typing rules for case trees in the first place. However, this is not the case for the case trees currently used internally by Agda! In fact, they do not contain sufficient information to check them independently, which is one of the major obstacles preventing us from having a proper core language for Agda. In the future, I would like to refactor the representation of case trees in Agda to be closer to the well-typed case trees in our paper.
First-match semantics and the shortcut rule
An important goal in our paper is to prove that elaborating a definition by pattern matching preserves the meaning of the definition. In particular, if the arguments to the function match a certain clause, and they didn’t match any of the previous clauses, then this clause should fire – this is the so-called first-match semantics of pattern matching. In our paper, prove that our elaboration process preserves the first-match semantics of the clauses written by the user.
In a dependently typed language, we expect stronger properties from our programs than usual, in particular w.r.t. evaluation of open terms (i.e. terms with free variables). This poses interesting new questions when proving properties that involve evaluation. For example, consider Berry’s infamous
: Bool → Bool → Bool → Bool majority = true majority true true true = x majority x true false = y majority false y true = z majority true false z = falsemajority false false false
majority x true false, can we safely skip the first clause and apply the second clause to conclude
majority x true false = x? This so-called shortcut rule allows matching to proceed to the next clause when there’s a mismatch for one argument (in this case the third) even when matching for another argument (here the first) is still inconclusive.
However, it turns out this rule is not allowed if we want to preserve the first-match semantics in the translation to a case tree! For example, the obvious case tree for
majority matches first on the first argument, which means
majority x true false is a stuck term that does not evaluate to anything.
A more restricted version of the shortcut rule is left-to-right matching, where the arguments are matched (you’d never guess) from left to right, and a mismatch means going to the next clause immediately. This semantics adequately describes the behaviour of the case tree for
majority and is the one that was (until recently) the one implemented in Agda.
But this restricted shortcut rule is also not preserved by the elaboration to a case tree. Here is an example for which the only valid case tree does not satisfy the first-match semantics with left-to-right matching:
: (A : Set) → A → (A ≡ Bool) → Bool f .Bool true refl = true f _ _ _ = falsef
The function matches on both its second and third argument, but in a well-typed case tree the match on the third argument has to come before the second. Hence
f Bool false p for a variable
p does not evaluate to
false but is stuck.
This actually caused a bug in Agda which allowed us to break subject reduction (see #2964). I only discovered this bug because I was writing the proof of preservation of first-match semantics and failed to make it work! Once we found the error, the problem was easy to fix by removing the shortcut rule in all forms.
In effect, our theorem says that the first-match semantics (without the shortcut rule) give a lower bound to the computational behaviour of any case tree produced by elaboration: the case has at least this computational behaviour, and possibly some more depending on the order of case splits. On the other hand, we could also give an upper bound to the computational behaviour of any case tree, in the form of some any-match semantics. The definition of any-match semantics and the proof that it is an upper bound is left as an exercise to the reader ;)
This post is getting pretty long so I’m going to stop here. If you cannot get enough, you’re in luck since there’s a whole paper for you! One thing that’s in the paper but I didn’t talk about here at all is copattern matching, as indicated by the `(co)’ in the paper title. Copatterns are very cool so maybe I’ll write something about them here later.
As always, if you have any questions or comments about this post, let me know on the Agda mailing list. See you next time, where I’ll hopefully talk about one of Agda’s most unsafe features: user-defined rewrite rules!