Practical generic programming over a universe of native datatypes

Datatype-generic programming makes it possible to define a construction once and apply it to a large class of datatypes. It is often used to avoid code duplication in languages that encourage the definition of custom datatypes, in particular state-of-the-art dependently typed languages where one can have many variants of the same datatype with different type-level invariants. In addition to giving access to familiar programming constructions for free, datatype-generic programming in the dependently typed setting also allows for the construction of generic proofs. However, the current interfaces available for this purpose are needlessly hard to use or are limited in the range of datatypes they handle. In this paper, we describe the design of a library for safe and user-friendly datatype-generic programming in the Agda language. Generic constructions in our library are regular Agda functions over a broad universe of datatypes, yet they can be specialized to native Agda datatypes with a simple one-liner. Furthermore, we provide building blocks so that library designers can too define their own datatype-generic constructions.Programming Language

Elaborating dependent (co)pattern matching: No pattern left behind

In a dependently typed language, we can guarantee correctness of our programmes 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 programmes 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 data types, 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.Programming Language

Optimising First-Class Pattern Matching

Pattern matching is a high-level notation for programs to analyse the shape of data, and can be optimised to efficient low-level instructions. The Stratego language uses first-class pattern matching, a powerful form of pattern matching that traditional optimisation techniques do not apply to directly.In this paper, we investigate how to optimise programs that use first-class pattern matching. Concretely, we show how to map first-class pattern matching to a form close to traditional pattern matching, on which standard optimisations can be applied.Through benchmarks, we demonstrate the positive effect of these optimisations on the run-time performance of Stratego programs. We conclude that the expressive power of first-class pattern matching does not hamper the optimisation potential of a language that features it.Programming Language

The taming of the Rew: A type theory with computational assumptions

Dependently typed programming languages and proof assistants such as Agda and Coq rely on computation to automatically simplify expressions during type checking. To overcome the lack of certain programming primitives or logical principles in those systems, it is common to appeal to axioms to postulate their existence. However, one can only postulate the bare existence of an axiom, not its computational behaviour. Instead, users are forced to postulate equality proofs and appeal to them explicitly to simplify expressions, making axioms dramatically more complicated to work with than built-in primitives. On the other hand, the equality reflection rule from extensional type theory solves these problems by collapsing computation and equality, at the cost of having no practical type checking algorithm. This paper introduces Rewriting Type Theory (RTT), a type theory where it is possible to add computational assumptions in the form of rewrite rules. Rewrite rules go beyond the computational capabilities of intensional type theory, but in contrast to extensional type theory, they are applied automatically so type checking does not require input from the user. To ensure type soundness of RTT-as well as effective type checking-we provide a framework where confluence of user-defined rewrite rules can be checked modularly and automatically, and where adding new rewrite rules is guaranteed to preserve subject reduction. The properties of RTT have been formally verified using the MetaCoq framework and an implementation of rewrite rules is already available in the Agda proof assistant. Programming Language