(** * Sub: Subtyping *) Set Warnings "-notation-overridden,-parsing". From Coq Require Import Strings.String. From PLF Require Import Maps. From PLF Require Import Types. From PLF Require Import Smallstep. (* ################################################################# *) (** * Concepts *) (** We now turn to the study of _subtyping_, a key feature needed to support the object-oriented programming style. *) (* ================================================================= *) (** ** A Motivating Example *) (** Suppose we are writing a program involving two record types defined as follows: Person = {name:String, age:Nat} Student = {name:String, age:Nat, gpa:Nat} *) (** In the simply typed lamdba-calculus with records, the term (\r:Person. (r.age)+1) {name="Pat",age=21,gpa=1} is not typable, since it applies a function that wants a two-field record to an argument that actually provides three fields, while the [T_App] rule demands that the domain type of the function being applied must match the type of the argument precisely. But this is silly: we're passing the function a _better_ argument than it needs! The only thing the body of the function can possibly do with its record argument [r] is project the field [age] from it: nothing else is allowed by the type, and the presence or absence of an extra [gpa] field makes no difference at all. So, intuitively, it seems that this function should be applicable to any record value that has at least an [age] field. More generally, a record with more fields is "at least as good in any context" as one with just a subset of these fields, in the sense that any value belonging to the longer record type can be used _safely_ in any context expecting the shorter record type. If the context expects something with the shorter type but we actually give it something with the longer type, nothing bad will happen (formally, the program will not get stuck). The principle at work here is called _subtyping_. We say that "[S] is a subtype of [T]", written [S <: T], if a value of type [S] can safely be used in any context where a value of type [T] is expected. The idea of subtyping applies not only to records, but to all of the type constructors in the language -- functions, pairs, etc. *) (** Safe substitution principle: - [S] is a subtype of [T], written [S <: T], if a value of type [S] can safely be used in any context where a value of type [T] is expected. *) (* ================================================================= *) (** ** Subtyping and Object-Oriented Languages *) (** Subtyping plays a fundamental role in many programming languages -- in particular, it is closely related to the notion of _subclassing_ in object-oriented languages. An _object_ in Java, C[#], etc. can be thought of as a record, some of whose fields are functions ("methods") and some of whose fields are data values ("fields" or "instance variables"). Invoking a method [m] of an object [o] on some arguments [a1..an] roughly consists of projecting out the [m] field of [o] and applying it to [a1..an]. The type of an object is called a _class_ -- or, in some languages, an _interface_. It describes which methods and which data fields the object offers. Classes and interfaces are related by the _subclass_ and _subinterface_ relations. An object belonging to a subclass (or subinterface) is required to provide all the methods and fields of one belonging to a superclass (or superinterface), plus possibly some more. The fact that an object from a subclass can be used in place of one from a superclass provides a degree of flexibility that is extremely handy for organizing complex libraries. For example, a GUI toolkit like Java's Swing framework might define an abstract interface [Component] that collects together the common fields and methods of all objects having a graphical representation that can be displayed on the screen and interact with the user, such as the buttons, checkboxes, and scrollbars of a typical GUI. A method that relies only on this common interface can now be applied to any of these objects. Of course, real object-oriented languages include many other features besides these. For example, fields can be updated. Fields and methods can be declared [private]. Classes can give _initializers_ that are used when constructing objects. Code in subclasses can cooperate with code in superclasses via _inheritance_. Classes can have static methods and fields. Etc., etc. To keep things simple here, we won't deal with any of these issues -- in fact, we won't even talk any more about objects or classes. (There is a lot of discussion in [Pierce 2002] (in Bib.v), if you are interested.) Instead, we'll study the core concepts behind the subclass / subinterface relation in the simplified setting of the STLC. *) (* ================================================================= *) (** ** The Subsumption Rule *) (** Our goal for this chapter is to add subtyping to the simply typed lambda-calculus (with some of the basic extensions from [MoreStlc]). This involves two steps: - Defining a binary _subtype relation_ between types. - Enriching the typing relation to take subtyping into account. The second step is actually very simple. We add just a single rule to the typing relation: the so-called _rule of subsumption_: Gamma |- t \in S S <: T --------------------------- (T_Sub) Gamma |- t \in T This rule says, intuitively, that it is OK to "forget" some of what we know about a term. *) (** For example, we may know that [t] is a record with two fields (e.g., [S = {x:A->A, y:B->B}]), but choose to forget about one of the fields ([T = {y:B->B}]) so that we can pass [t] to a function that requires just a single-field record. *) (* ================================================================= *) (** ** The Subtype Relation *) (** The first step -- the definition of the relation [S <: T] -- is where all the action is. Let's look at each of the clauses of its definition. *) (* ----------------------------------------------------------------- *) (** *** Structural Rules *) (** To start off, we impose two "structural rules" that are independent of any particular type constructor: a rule of _transitivity_, which says intuitively that, if [S] is better (richer, safer) than [U] and [U] is better than [T], then [S] is better than [T]... S <: U U <: T ---------------- (S_Trans) S <: T ... and a rule of _reflexivity_, since certainly any type [T] is as good as itself: ------ (S_Refl) T <: T *) (* ----------------------------------------------------------------- *) (** *** Products *) (** Now we consider the individual type constructors, one by one, beginning with product types. We consider one pair to be a subtype of another if each of its components is. S1 <: T1 S2 <: T2 -------------------- (S_Prod) S1 * S2 <: T1 * T2 *) (* ----------------------------------------------------------------- *) (** *** Arrows *) (** The subtyping rule for arrows is a little less intuitive. Suppose we have functions [f] and [g] with these types: f : C -> Student g : (C->Person) -> D That is, [f] is a function that yields a record of type [Student], and [g] is a (higher-order) function that expects its argument to be a function yielding a record of type [Person]. Also suppose that [Student] is a subtype of [Person]. Then the application [g f] is safe even though their types do not match up precisely, because the only thing [g] can do with [f] is to apply it to some argument (of type [C]); the result will actually be a [Student], while [g] will be expecting a [Person], but this is safe because the only thing [g] can then do is to project out the two fields that it knows about ([name] and [age]), and these will certainly be among the fields that are present. This example suggests that the subtyping rule for arrow types should say that two arrow types are in the subtype relation if their results are: S2 <: T2 ---------------- (S_Arrow_Co) S1 -> S2 <: S1 -> T2 We can generalize this to allow the arguments of the two arrow types to be in the subtype relation as well: T1 <: S1 S2 <: T2 -------------------- (S_Arrow) S1 -> S2 <: T1 -> T2 But notice that the argument types are subtypes "the other way round": in order to conclude that [S1->S2] to be a subtype of [T1->T2], it must be the case that [T1] is a subtype of [S1]. The arrow constructor is said to be _contravariant_ in its first argument and _covariant_ in its second. Here is an example that illustrates this: f : Person -> C g : (Student -> C) -> D The application [g f] is safe, because the only thing the body of [g] can do with [f] is to apply it to some argument of type [Student]. Since [f] requires records having (at least) the fields of a [Person], this will always work. So [Person -> C] is a subtype of [Student -> C] since [Student] is a subtype of [Person]. The intuition is that, if we have a function [f] of type [S1->S2], then we know that [f] accepts elements of type [S1]; clearly, [f] will also accept elements of any subtype [T1] of [S1]. The type of [f] also tells us that it returns elements of type [S2]; we can also view these results belonging to any supertype [T2] of [S2]. That is, any function [f] of type [S1->S2] can also be viewed as having type [T1->T2]. *) (* ----------------------------------------------------------------- *) (** *** Records *) (** What about subtyping for record types? *) (** The basic intuition is that it is always safe to use a "bigger" record in place of a "smaller" one. That is, given a record type, adding extra fields will always result in a subtype. If some code is expecting a record with fields [x] and [y], it is perfectly safe for it to receive a record with fields [x], [y], and [z]; the [z] field will simply be ignored. For example, {name:String, age:Nat, gpa:Nat} <: {name:String, age:Nat} {name:String, age:Nat} <: {name:String} {name:String} <: {} This is known as "width subtyping" for records. *) (** We can also create a subtype of a record type by replacing the type of one of its fields with a subtype. If some code is expecting a record with a field [x] of type [T], it will be happy with a record having a field [x] of type [S] as long as [S] is a subtype of [T]. For example, {x:Student} <: {x:Person} This is known as "depth subtyping". *) (** Finally, although the fields of a record type are written in a particular order, the order does not really matter. For example, {name:String,age:Nat} <: {age:Nat,name:String} This is known as "permutation subtyping". *) (** We _could_ formalize these requirements in a single subtyping rule for records as follows: forall jk in j1..jn, exists ip in i1..im, such that jk=ip and Sp <: Tk ---------------------------------- (S_Rcd) {i1:S1...im:Sm} <: {j1:T1...jn:Tn} That is, the record on the left should have all the field labels of the one on the right (and possibly more), while the types of the common fields should be in the subtype relation. However, this rule is rather heavy and hard to read, so it is often decomposed into three simpler rules, which can be combined using [S_Trans] to achieve all the same effects. *) (** First, adding fields to the end of a record type gives a subtype: n > m --------------------------------- (S_RcdWidth) {i1:T1...in:Tn} <: {i1:T1...im:Tm} We can use [S_RcdWidth] to drop later fields of a multi-field record while keeping earlier fields, showing for example that [{age:Nat,name:String} <: {age:Nat}]. *) (** Second, subtyping can be applied inside the components of a compound record type: S1 <: T1 ... Sn <: Tn ---------------------------------- (S_RcdDepth) {i1:S1...in:Sn} <: {i1:T1...in:Tn} For example, we can use [S_RcdDepth] and [S_RcdWidth] together to show that [{y:Student, x:Nat} <: {y:Person}]. *) (** Third, subtyping can reorder fields. For example, we want [{name:String, gpa:Nat, age:Nat} <: Person]. (We haven't quite achieved this yet: using just [S_RcdDepth] and [S_RcdWidth] we can only drop fields from the _end_ of a record type.) So we add: {i1:S1...in:Sn} is a permutation of {j1:T1...jn:Tn} --------------------------------------------------- (S_RcdPerm) {i1:S1...in:Sn} <: {j1:T1...jn:Tn} *) (** It is worth noting that full-blown language designs may choose not to adopt all of these subtyping rules. For example, in Java: - Each class member (field or method) can be assigned a single index, adding new indices "on the right" as more members are added in subclasses (i.e., no permutation for classes). - A class may implement multiple interfaces -- so-called "multiple inheritance" of interfaces (i.e., permutation is allowed for interfaces). - In early versions of Java, a subclass could not change the argument or result types of a method of its superclass (i.e., no depth subtyping or no arrow subtyping, depending how you look at it). *) (** **** Exercise: 2 stars, standard, recommended (arrow_sub_wrong) Suppose we had incorrectly defined subtyping as covariant on both the right and the left of arrow types: S1 <: T1 S2 <: T2 -------------------- (S_Arrow_wrong) S1 -> S2 <: T1 -> T2 Give a concrete example of functions [f] and [g] with the following types... f : Student -> Nat g : (Person -> Nat) -> Nat ... such that the application [g f] will get stuck during execution. (Use informal syntax. No need to prove formally that the application gets stuck.) *) (* Do not modify the following line: *) Definition manual_grade_for_arrow_sub_wrong : option (nat*string) := None. (** [] *) (* ----------------------------------------------------------------- *) (** *** Top *) (** Finally, it is convenient to give the subtype relation a maximum element -- a type that lies above every other type and is inhabited by all (well-typed) values. We do this by adding to the language one new type constant, called [Top], together with a subtyping rule that places it above every other type in the subtype relation: -------- (S_Top) S <: Top The [Top] type is an analog of the [Object] type in Java and C#. *) (* ----------------------------------------------------------------- *) (** *** Summary *) (** In summary, we form the STLC with subtyping by starting with the pure STLC (over some set of base types) and then... - adding a base type [Top], - adding the rule of subsumption Gamma |- t \in S S <: T --------------------------- (T_Sub) Gamma |- t \in T to the typing relation, and - defining a subtype relation as follows: S <: U U <: T ---------------- (S_Trans) S <: T ------ (S_Refl) T <: T -------- (S_Top) S <: Top S1 <: T1 S2 <: T2 -------------------- (S_Prod) S1 * S2 <: T1 * T2 T1 <: S1 S2 <: T2 -------------------- (S_Arrow) S1 -> S2 <: T1 -> T2 n > m --------------------------------- (S_RcdWidth) {i1:T1...in:Tn} <: {i1:T1...im:Tm} S1 <: T1 ... Sn <: Tn ---------------------------------- (S_RcdDepth) {i1:S1...in:Sn} <: {i1:T1...in:Tn} {i1:S1...in:Sn} is a permutation of {j1:T1...jn:Tn} --------------------------------------------------- (S_RcdPerm) {i1:S1...in:Sn} <: {j1:T1...jn:Tn} *) (* ================================================================= *) (** ** Exercises *) (** **** Exercise: 1 star, standard, optional (subtype_instances_tf_1) Suppose we have types [S], [T], [U], and [V] with [S <: T] and [U <: V]. Which of the following subtyping assertions are then true? Write _true_ or _false_ after each one. ([A], [B], and [C] here are base types like [Bool], [Nat], etc.) - [T->S <: T->S] - [Top->U <: S->Top] - [(C->C) -> (A*B) <: (C->C) -> (Top*B)] - [T->T->U <: S->S->V] - [(T->T)->U <: (S->S)->V] - [((T->S)->T)->U <: ((S->T)->S)->V] - [S*V <: T*U] [] *) (** **** Exercise: 2 stars, standard (subtype_order) The following types happen to form a linear order with respect to subtyping: - [Top] - [Top -> Student] - [Student -> Person] - [Student -> Top] - [Person -> Student] Write these types in order from the most specific to the most general. Where does the type [Top->Top->Student] fit into this order? That is, state how [Top -> (Top -> Student)] compares with each of the five types above. It may be unrelated to some of them. *) (* Do not modify the following line: *) Definition manual_grade_for_subtype_order : option (nat*string) := None. (** [] *) (** **** Exercise: 1 star, standard (subtype_instances_tf_2) Which of the following statements are true? Write _true_ or _false_ after each one. forall S T, S <: T -> S->S <: T->T forall S, S <: A->A -> exists T, S = T->T /\ T <: A forall S T1 T2, (S <: T1 -> T2) -> exists S1 S2, S = S1 -> S2 /\ T1 <: S1 /\ S2 <: T2 exists S, S <: S->S exists S, S->S <: S forall S T1 T2, S <: T1*T2 -> exists S1 S2, S = S1*S2 /\ S1 <: T1 /\ S2 <: T2 *) (* Do not modify the following line: *) Definition manual_grade_for_subtype_instances_tf_2 : option (nat*string) := None. (** [] *) (** **** Exercise: 1 star, standard (subtype_concepts_tf) Which of the following statements are true, and which are false? - There exists a type that is a supertype of every other type. - There exists a type that is a subtype of every other type. - There exists a pair type that is a supertype of every other pair type. - There exists a pair type that is a subtype of every other pair type. - There exists an arrow type that is a supertype of every other arrow type. - There exists an arrow type that is a subtype of every other arrow type. - There is an infinite descending chain of distinct types in the subtype relation---that is, an infinite sequence of types [S0], [S1], etc., such that all the [Si]'s are different and each [S(i+1)] is a subtype of [Si]. - There is an infinite _ascending_ chain of distinct types in the subtype relation---that is, an infinite sequence of types [S0], [S1], etc., such that all the [Si]'s are different and each [S(i+1)] is a supertype of [Si]. *) (* Do not modify the following line: *) Definition manual_grade_for_subtype_concepts_tf : option (nat*string) := None. (** [] *) (** **** Exercise: 2 stars, standard (proper_subtypes) Is the following statement true or false? Briefly explain your answer. (Here [Base n] stands for a base type, where [n] is a string standing for the name of the base type. See the Syntax section below.) forall T, ~(T = Bool \/ exists n, T = Base n) -> exists S, S <: T /\ S <> T *) (* Do not modify the following line: *) Definition manual_grade_for_proper_subtypes : option (nat*string) := None. (** [] *) (** **** Exercise: 2 stars, standard (small_large_1) - What is the _smallest_ type [T] ("smallest" in the subtype relation) that makes the following assertion true? (Assume we have [Unit] among the base types and [unit] as a constant of this type.) empty |- (\p:T*Top. p.fst) ((\z:A.z), unit) \in A->A - What is the _largest_ type [T] that makes the same assertion true? *) (* Do not modify the following line: *) Definition manual_grade_for_small_large_1 : option (nat*string) := None. (** [] *) (** **** Exercise: 2 stars, standard (small_large_2) - What is the _smallest_ type [T] that makes the following assertion true? empty |- (\p:(A->A * B->B). p) ((\z:A.z), (\z:B.z)) \in T - What is the _largest_ type [T] that makes the same assertion true? *) (* Do not modify the following line: *) Definition manual_grade_for_small_large_2 : option (nat*string) := None. (** [] *) (** **** Exercise: 2 stars, standard, optional (small_large_3) - What is the _smallest_ type [T] that makes the following assertion true? a:A |- (\p:(A*T). (p.snd) (p.fst)) (a, \z:A.z) \in A - What is the _largest_ type [T] that makes the same assertion true? [] *) (** **** Exercise: 2 stars, standard (small_large_4) - What is the _smallest_ type [T] that makes the following assertion true? exists S, empty |- (\p:(A*T). (p.snd) (p.fst)) \in S - What is the _largest_ type [T] that makes the same assertion true? *) (* Do not modify the following line: *) Definition manual_grade_for_small_large_4 : option (nat*string) := None. (** [] *) (** **** Exercise: 2 stars, standard (smallest_1) What is the _smallest_ type [T] that makes the following assertion true? exists S t, empty |- (\x:T. x x) t \in S *) (* Do not modify the following line: *) Definition manual_grade_for_smallest_1 : option (nat*string) := None. (** [] *) (** **** Exercise: 2 stars, standard (smallest_2) What is the _smallest_ type [T] that makes the following assertion true? empty |- (\x:Top. x) ((\z:A.z) , (\z:B.z)) \in T *) (* Do not modify the following line: *) Definition manual_grade_for_smallest_2 : option (nat*string) := None. (** [] *) (** **** Exercise: 3 stars, standard, optional (count_supertypes) How many supertypes does the record type [{x:A, y:C->C}] have? That is, how many different types [T] are there such that [{x:A, y:C->C} <: T]? (We consider two types to be different if they are written differently, even if each is a subtype of the other. For example, [{x:A,y:B}] and [{y:B,x:A}] are different.) [] *) (** **** Exercise: 2 stars, standard (pair_permutation) The subtyping rule for product types S1 <: T1 S2 <: T2 -------------------- (S_Prod) S1*S2 <: T1*T2 intuitively corresponds to the "depth" subtyping rule for records. Extending the analogy, we might consider adding a "permutation" rule -------------- T1*T2 <: T2*T1 for products. Is this a good idea? Briefly explain why or why not. *) (* Do not modify the following line: *) Definition manual_grade_for_pair_permutation : option (nat*string) := None. (** [] *) (* ################################################################# *) (** * Formal Definitions *) (** Most of the definitions needed to formalize what we've discussed above -- in particular, the syntax and operational semantics of the language -- are identical to what we saw in the last chapter. We just need to extend the typing relation with the subsumption rule and add a new [Inductive] definition for the subtyping relation. Let's first do the identical bits. *) (* ================================================================= *) (** ** Core Definitions *) (* ----------------------------------------------------------------- *) (** *** Syntax *) (** In the rest of the chapter, we formalize just base types, booleans, arrow types, [Unit], and [Top], omitting record types and leaving product types as an exercise. For the sake of more interesting examples, we'll add an arbitrary set of base types like [String], [Float], etc. (Since they are just for examples, we won't bother adding any operations over these base types, but we could easily do so.) *) Inductive ty : Type := | Top : ty | Bool : ty | Base : string -> ty | Arrow : ty -> ty -> ty | Unit : ty . Inductive tm : Type := | var : string -> tm | app : tm -> tm -> tm | abs : string -> ty -> tm -> tm | tru : tm | fls : tm | test : tm -> tm -> tm -> tm | unit : tm . (* ----------------------------------------------------------------- *) (** *** Substitution *) (** The definition of substitution remains exactly the same as for the pure STLC. *) Fixpoint subst (x:string) (s:tm) (t:tm) : tm := match t with | var y => if eqb_string x y then s else t | abs y T t1 => abs y T (if eqb_string x y then t1 else (subst x s t1)) | app t1 t2 => app (subst x s t1) (subst x s t2) | tru => tru | fls => fls | test t1 t2 t3 => test (subst x s t1) (subst x s t2) (subst x s t3) | unit => unit end. Notation "'[' x ':=' s ']' t" := (subst x s t) (at level 20). (* ----------------------------------------------------------------- *) (** *** Reduction *) (** Likewise the definitions of the [value] property and the [step] relation. *) Inductive value : tm -> Prop := | v_abs : forall x T t, value (abs x T t) | v_true : value tru | v_false : value fls | v_unit : value unit . Hint Constructors value. Reserved Notation "t1 '-->' t2" (at level 40). Inductive step : tm -> tm -> Prop := | ST_AppAbs : forall x T t12 v2, value v2 -> (app (abs x T t12) v2) --> [x:=v2]t12 | ST_App1 : forall t1 t1' t2, t1 --> t1' -> (app t1 t2) --> (app t1' t2) | ST_App2 : forall v1 t2 t2', value v1 -> t2 --> t2' -> (app v1 t2) --> (app v1 t2') | ST_TestTrue : forall t1 t2, (test tru t1 t2) --> t1 | ST_TestFalse : forall t1 t2, (test fls t1 t2) --> t2 | ST_Test : forall t1 t1' t2 t3, t1 --> t1' -> (test t1 t2 t3) --> (test t1' t2 t3) where "t1 '-->' t2" := (step t1 t2). Hint Constructors step. (* ================================================================= *) (** ** Subtyping *) (** Now we come to the interesting part. We begin by defining the subtyping relation and developing some of its important technical properties. *) (** The definition of subtyping is just what we sketched in the motivating discussion. *) Reserved Notation "T '<:' U" (at level 40). Inductive subtype : ty -> ty -> Prop := | S_Refl : forall T, T <: T | S_Trans : forall S U T, S <: U -> U <: T -> S <: T | S_Top : forall S, S <: Top | S_Arrow : forall S1 S2 T1 T2, T1 <: S1 -> S2 <: T2 -> (Arrow S1 S2) <: (Arrow T1 T2) where "T '<:' U" := (subtype T U). (** Note that we don't need any special rules for base types ([Bool] and [Base]): they are automatically subtypes of themselves (by [S_Refl]) and [Top] (by [S_Top]), and that's all we want. *) Hint Constructors subtype. Module Examples. Open Scope string_scope. Notation x := "x". Notation y := "y". Notation z := "z". Notation A := (Base "A"). Notation B := (Base "B"). Notation C := (Base "C"). Notation String := (Base "String"). Notation Float := (Base "Float"). Notation Integer := (Base "Integer"). Example subtyping_example_0 : (Arrow C Bool) <: (Arrow C Top). (* C->Bool <: C->Top *) Proof. auto. Qed. (** **** Exercise: 2 stars, standard, optional (subtyping_judgements) (Leave this exercise [Admitted] until after you have finished adding product types to the language -- see exercise [products] -- at least up to this point in the file). Recall that, in chapter [MoreStlc], the optional section "Encoding Records" describes how records can be encoded as pairs. Using this encoding, define pair types representing the following record types: Person := { name : String } Student := { name : String ; gpa : Float } Employee := { name : String ; ssn : Integer } *) Definition Person : ty (* REPLACE THIS LINE WITH ":= _your_definition_ ." *). Admitted. Definition Student : ty (* REPLACE THIS LINE WITH ":= _your_definition_ ." *). Admitted. Definition Employee : ty (* REPLACE THIS LINE WITH ":= _your_definition_ ." *). Admitted. (** Now use the definition of the subtype relation to prove the following: *) Example sub_student_person : Student <: Person. Proof. (* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted. Example sub_employee_person : Employee <: Person. Proof. (* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted. (** [] *) (** The following facts are mostly easy to prove in Coq. To get full benefit from the exercises, make sure you also understand how to prove them on paper! *) (** **** Exercise: 1 star, standard, optional (subtyping_example_1) *) Example subtyping_example_1 : (Arrow Top Student) <: (Arrow (Arrow C C) Person). (* Top->Student <: (C->C)->Person *) Proof with eauto. (* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted. (** [] *) (** **** Exercise: 1 star, standard, optional (subtyping_example_2) *) Example subtyping_example_2 : (Arrow Top Person) <: (Arrow Person Top). (* Top->Person <: Person->Top *) Proof with eauto. (* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted. (** [] *) End Examples. (* ================================================================= *) (** ** Typing *) (** The only change to the typing relation is the addition of the rule of subsumption, [T_Sub]. *) Definition context := partial_map ty. Reserved Notation "Gamma '|-' t '\in' T" (at level 40). Inductive has_type : context -> tm -> ty -> Prop := (* Same as before *) | T_Var : forall Gamma x T, Gamma x = Some T -> Gamma |- var x \in T | T_Abs : forall Gamma x T11 T12 t12, (x |-> T11 ; Gamma) |- t12 \in T12 -> Gamma |- abs x T11 t12 \in Arrow T11 T12 | T_App : forall T1 T2 Gamma t1 t2, Gamma |- t1 \in Arrow T1 T2 -> Gamma |- t2 \in T1 -> Gamma |- app t1 t2 \in T2 | T_True : forall Gamma, Gamma |- tru \in Bool | T_False : forall Gamma, Gamma |- fls \in Bool | T_Test : forall t1 t2 t3 T Gamma, Gamma |- t1 \in Bool -> Gamma |- t2 \in T -> Gamma |- t3 \in T -> Gamma |- test t1 t2 t3 \in T | T_Unit : forall Gamma, Gamma |- unit \in Unit (* New rule of subsumption *) | T_Sub : forall Gamma t S T, Gamma |- t \in S -> S <: T -> Gamma |- t \in T where "Gamma '|-' t '\in' T" := (has_type Gamma t T). Hint Constructors has_type. (** The following hints help [auto] and [eauto] construct typing derivations. They are only used in a few places, but they give a nice illustration of what [auto] can do with a bit more programming. See chapter [UseAuto] for more on hints. *) Hint Extern 2 (has_type _ (app _ _) _) => eapply T_App; auto. Hint Extern 2 (_ = _) => compute; reflexivity. Module Examples2. Import Examples. (** Do the following exercises after you have added product types to the language. For each informal typing judgement, write it as a formal statement in Coq and prove it. *) (** **** Exercise: 1 star, standard, optional (typing_example_0) *) (* empty |- ((\z:A.z), (\z:B.z)) \in (A->A * B->B) *) (* FILL IN HERE [] *) (** **** Exercise: 2 stars, standard, optional (typing_example_1) *) (* empty |- (\x:(Top * B->B). x.snd) ((\z:A.z), (\z:B.z)) \in B->B *) (* FILL IN HERE [] *) (** **** Exercise: 2 stars, standard, optional (typing_example_2) *) (* empty |- (\z:(C->C)->(Top * B->B). (z (\x:C.x)).snd) (\z:C->C. ((\z:A.z), (\z:B.z))) \in B->B *) (* FILL IN HERE [] *) End Examples2. (* ################################################################# *) (** * Properties *) (** The fundamental properties of the system that we want to check are the same as always: progress and preservation. Unlike the extension of the STLC with references (chapter [References]), we don't need to change the _statements_ of these properties to take subtyping into account. However, their proofs do become a little bit more involved. *) (* ================================================================= *) (** ** Inversion Lemmas for Subtyping *) (** Before we look at the properties of the typing relation, we need to establish a couple of critical structural properties of the subtype relation: - [Bool] is the only subtype of [Bool], and - every subtype of an arrow type is itself an arrow type. *) (** These are called _inversion lemmas_ because they play a similar role in proofs as the built-in [inversion] tactic: given a hypothesis that there exists a derivation of some subtyping statement [S <: T] and some constraints on the shape of [S] and/or [T], each inversion lemma reasons about what this derivation must look like to tell us something further about the shapes of [S] and [T] and the existence of subtype relations between their parts. *) (** **** Exercise: 2 stars, standard, optional (sub_inversion_Bool) *) Lemma sub_inversion_Bool : forall U, U <: Bool -> U = Bool. Proof with auto. intros U Hs. remember Bool as V. (* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted. (** [] *) (** **** Exercise: 3 stars, standard (sub_inversion_arrow) *) Lemma sub_inversion_arrow : forall U V1 V2, U <: Arrow V1 V2 -> exists U1 U2, U = Arrow U1 U2 /\ V1 <: U1 /\ U2 <: V2. Proof with eauto. intros U V1 V2 Hs. remember (Arrow V1 V2) as V. generalize dependent V2. generalize dependent V1. (* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted. (** [] *) (* ================================================================= *) (** ** Canonical Forms *) (** The proof of the progress theorem -- that a well-typed non-value can always take a step -- doesn't need to change too much: we just need one small refinement. When we're considering the case where the term in question is an application [t1 t2] where both [t1] and [t2] are values, we need to know that [t1] has the _form_ of a lambda-abstraction, so that we can apply the [ST_AppAbs] reduction rule. In the ordinary STLC, this is obvious: we know that [t1] has a function type [T11->T12], and there is only one rule that can be used to give a function type to a value -- rule [T_Abs] -- and the form of the conclusion of this rule forces [t1] to be an abstraction. In the STLC with subtyping, this reasoning doesn't quite work because there's another rule that can be used to show that a value has a function type: subsumption. Fortunately, this possibility doesn't change things much: if the last rule used to show [Gamma |- t1 \in T11->T12] is subsumption, then there is some _sub_-derivation whose subject is also [t1], and we can reason by induction until we finally bottom out at a use of [T_Abs]. This bit of reasoning is packaged up in the following lemma, which tells us the possible "canonical forms" (i.e., values) of function type. *) (** **** Exercise: 3 stars, standard, optional (canonical_forms_of_arrow_types) *) Lemma canonical_forms_of_arrow_types : forall Gamma s T1 T2, Gamma |- s \in Arrow T1 T2 -> value s -> exists x S1 s2, s = abs x S1 s2. Proof with eauto. (* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted. (** [] *) (** Similarly, the canonical forms of type [Bool] are the constants [tru] and [fls]. *) Lemma canonical_forms_of_Bool : forall Gamma s, Gamma |- s \in Bool -> value s -> s = tru \/ s = fls. Proof with eauto. intros Gamma s Hty Hv. remember Bool as T. induction Hty; try solve_by_invert... - (* T_Sub *) subst. apply sub_inversion_Bool in H. subst... Qed. (* ================================================================= *) (** ** Progress *) (** The proof of progress now proceeds just like the one for the pure STLC, except that in several places we invoke canonical forms lemmas... *) (** _Theorem_ (Progress): For any term [t] and type [T], if [empty |- t \in T] then [t] is a value or [t --> t'] for some term [t']. _Proof_: Let [t] and [T] be given, with [empty |- t \in T]. Proceed by induction on the typing derivation. The cases for [T_Abs], [T_Unit], [T_True] and [T_False] are immediate because abstractions, [unit], [tru], and [fls] are already values. The [T_Var] case is vacuous because variables cannot be typed in the empty context. The remaining cases are more interesting: - If the last step in the typing derivation uses rule [T_App], then there are terms [t1] [t2] and types [T1] and [T2] such that [t = t1 t2], [T = T2], [empty |- t1 \in T1 -> T2], and [empty |- t2 \in T1]. Moreover, by the induction hypothesis, either [t1] is a value or it steps, and either [t2] is a value or it steps. There are three possibilities to consider: - Suppose [t1 --> t1'] for some term [t1']. Then [t1 t2 --> t1' t2] by [ST_App1]. - Suppose [t1] is a value and [t2 --> t2'] for some term [t2']. Then [t1 t2 --> t1 t2'] by rule [ST_App2] because [t1] is a value. - Finally, suppose [t1] and [t2] are both values. By the canonical forms lemma for arrow types, we know that [t1] has the form [\x:S1.s2] for some [x], [S1], and [s2]. But then [(\x:S1.s2) t2 --> [x:=t2]s2] by [ST_AppAbs], since [t2] is a value. - If the final step of the derivation uses rule [T_Test], then there are terms [t1], [t2], and [t3] such that [t = test t1 then t2 else t3], with [empty |- t1 \in Bool] and with [empty |- t2 \in T] and [empty |- t3 \in T]. Moreover, by the induction hypothesis, either [t1] is a value or it steps. - If [t1] is a value, then by the canonical forms lemma for booleans, either [t1 = tru] or [t1 = fls]. In either case, [t] can step, using rule [ST_TestTrue] or [ST_TestFalse]. - If [t1] can step, then so can [t], by rule [ST_Test]. - If the final step of the derivation is by [T_Sub], then there is a type [S] such that [S <: T] and [empty |- t \in S]. The desired result is exactly the induction hypothesis for the typing subderivation. Formally: *) Theorem progress : forall t T, empty |- t \in T -> value t \/ exists t', t --> t'. Proof with eauto. intros t T Ht. remember empty as Gamma. revert HeqGamma. induction Ht; intros HeqGamma; subst... - (* T_Var *) inversion H. - (* T_App *) right. destruct IHHt1; subst... + (* t1 is a value *) destruct IHHt2; subst... * (* t2 is a value *) destruct (canonical_forms_of_arrow_types empty t1 T1 T2) as [x [S1 [t12 Heqt1]]]... subst. exists ([x:=t2]t12)... * (* t2 steps *) inversion H0 as [t2' Hstp]. exists (app t1 t2')... + (* t1 steps *) inversion H as [t1' Hstp]. exists (app t1' t2)... - (* T_Test *) right. destruct IHHt1. + (* t1 is a value *) eauto. + assert (t1 = tru \/ t1 = fls) by (eapply canonical_forms_of_Bool; eauto). inversion H0; subst... + inversion H. rename x into t1'. eauto. Qed. (* ================================================================= *) (** ** Inversion Lemmas for Typing *) (** The proof of the preservation theorem also becomes a little more complex with the addition of subtyping. The reason is that, as with the "inversion lemmas for subtyping" above, there are a number of facts about the typing relation that are immediate from the definition in the pure STLC (formally: that can be obtained directly from the [inversion] tactic) but that require real proofs in the presence of subtyping because there are multiple ways to derive the same [has_type] statement. The following inversion lemma tells us that, if we have a derivation of some typing statement [Gamma |- \x:S1.t2 \in T] whose subject is an abstraction, then there must be some subderivation giving a type to the body [t2]. *) (** _Lemma_: If [Gamma |- \x:S1.t2 \in T], then there is a type [S2] such that [x|->S1; Gamma |- t2 \in S2] and [S1 -> S2 <: T]. (Notice that the lemma does _not_ say, "then [T] itself is an arrow type" -- this is tempting, but false!) _Proof_: Let [Gamma], [x], [S1], [t2] and [T] be given as described. Proceed by induction on the derivation of [Gamma |- \x:S1.t2 \in T]. Cases [T_Var], [T_App], are vacuous as those rules cannot be used to give a type to a syntactic abstraction. - If the last step of the derivation is a use of [T_Abs] then there is a type [T12] such that [T = S1 -> T12] and [x:S1; Gamma |- t2 \in T12]. Picking [T12] for [S2] gives us what we need: [S1 -> T12 <: S1 -> T12] follows from [S_Refl]. - If the last step of the derivation is a use of [T_Sub] then there is a type [S] such that [S <: T] and [Gamma |- \x:S1.t2 \in S]. The IH for the typing subderivation tells us that there is some type [S2] with [S1 -> S2 <: S] and [x:S1; Gamma |- t2 \in S2]. Picking type [S2] gives us what we need, since [S1 -> S2 <: T] then follows by [S_Trans]. Formally: *) Lemma typing_inversion_abs : forall Gamma x S1 t2 T, Gamma |- (abs x S1 t2) \in T -> exists S2, Arrow S1 S2 <: T /\ (x |-> S1 ; Gamma) |- t2 \in S2. Proof with eauto. intros Gamma x S1 t2 T H. remember (abs x S1 t2) as t. induction H; inversion Heqt; subst; intros; try solve_by_invert. - (* T_Abs *) exists T12... - (* T_Sub *) destruct IHhas_type as [S2 [Hsub Hty]]... Qed. (** Similarly... *) Lemma typing_inversion_var : forall Gamma x T, Gamma |- (var x) \in T -> exists S, Gamma x = Some S /\ S <: T. Proof with eauto. intros Gamma x T Hty. remember (var x) as t. induction Hty; intros; inversion Heqt; subst; try solve_by_invert. - (* T_Var *) exists T... - (* T_Sub *) destruct IHHty as [U [Hctx HsubU]]... Qed. Lemma typing_inversion_app : forall Gamma t1 t2 T2, Gamma |- (app t1 t2) \in T2 -> exists T1, Gamma |- t1 \in (Arrow T1 T2) /\ Gamma |- t2 \in T1. Proof with eauto. intros Gamma t1 t2 T2 Hty. remember (app t1 t2) as t. induction Hty; intros; inversion Heqt; subst; try solve_by_invert. - (* T_App *) exists T1... - (* T_Sub *) destruct IHHty as [U1 [Hty1 Hty2]]... Qed. Lemma typing_inversion_true : forall Gamma T, Gamma |- tru \in T -> Bool <: T. Proof with eauto. intros Gamma T Htyp. remember tru as tu. induction Htyp; inversion Heqtu; subst; intros... Qed. Lemma typing_inversion_false : forall Gamma T, Gamma |- fls \in T -> Bool <: T. Proof with eauto. intros Gamma T Htyp. remember fls as tu. induction Htyp; inversion Heqtu; subst; intros... Qed. Lemma typing_inversion_if : forall Gamma t1 t2 t3 T, Gamma |- (test t1 t2 t3) \in T -> Gamma |- t1 \in Bool /\ Gamma |- t2 \in T /\ Gamma |- t3 \in T. Proof with eauto. intros Gamma t1 t2 t3 T Hty. remember (test t1 t2 t3) as t. induction Hty; intros; inversion Heqt; subst; try solve_by_invert. - (* T_Test *) auto. - (* T_Sub *) destruct (IHHty H0) as [H1 [H2 H3]]... Qed. Lemma typing_inversion_unit : forall Gamma T, Gamma |- unit \in T -> Unit <: T. Proof with eauto. intros Gamma T Htyp. remember unit as tu. induction Htyp; inversion Heqtu; subst; intros... Qed. (** The inversion lemmas for typing and for subtyping between arrow types can be packaged up as a useful "combination lemma" telling us exactly what we'll actually require below. *) Lemma abs_arrow : forall x S1 s2 T1 T2, empty |- (abs x S1 s2) \in (Arrow T1 T2) -> T1 <: S1 /\ (x |-> S1 ; empty) |- s2 \in T2. Proof with eauto. intros x S1 s2 T1 T2 Hty. apply typing_inversion_abs in Hty. inversion Hty as [S2 [Hsub Hty1]]. apply sub_inversion_arrow in Hsub. inversion Hsub as [U1 [U2 [Heq [Hsub1 Hsub2]]]]. inversion Heq; subst... Qed. (* ================================================================= *) (** ** Context Invariance *) (** The context invariance lemma follows the same pattern as in the pure STLC. *) Inductive appears_free_in : string -> tm -> Prop := | afi_var : forall x, appears_free_in x (var x) | afi_app1 : forall x t1 t2, appears_free_in x t1 -> appears_free_in x (app t1 t2) | afi_app2 : forall x t1 t2, appears_free_in x t2 -> appears_free_in x (app t1 t2) | afi_abs : forall x y T11 t12, y <> x -> appears_free_in x t12 -> appears_free_in x (abs y T11 t12) | afi_test1 : forall x t1 t2 t3, appears_free_in x t1 -> appears_free_in x (test t1 t2 t3) | afi_test2 : forall x t1 t2 t3, appears_free_in x t2 -> appears_free_in x (test t1 t2 t3) | afi_test3 : forall x t1 t2 t3, appears_free_in x t3 -> appears_free_in x (test t1 t2 t3) . Hint Constructors appears_free_in. Lemma context_invariance : forall Gamma Gamma' t S, Gamma |- t \in S -> (forall x, appears_free_in x t -> Gamma x = Gamma' x) -> Gamma' |- t \in S. Proof with eauto. intros. generalize dependent Gamma'. induction H; intros Gamma' Heqv... - (* T_Var *) apply T_Var... rewrite <- Heqv... - (* T_Abs *) apply T_Abs... apply IHhas_type. intros x0 Hafi. unfold update, t_update. destruct (eqb_stringP x x0)... - (* T_Test *) apply T_Test... Qed. Lemma free_in_context : forall x t T Gamma, appears_free_in x t -> Gamma |- t \in T -> exists T', Gamma x = Some T'. Proof with eauto. intros x t T Gamma Hafi Htyp. induction Htyp; subst; inversion Hafi; subst... - (* T_Abs *) destruct (IHHtyp H4) as [T Hctx]. exists T. unfold update, t_update in Hctx. rewrite <- eqb_string_false_iff in H2. rewrite H2 in Hctx... Qed. (* ================================================================= *) (** ** Substitution *) (** The _substitution lemma_ is proved along the same lines as for the pure STLC. The only significant change is that there are several places where, instead of the built-in [inversion] tactic, we need to use the inversion lemmas that we proved above to extract structural information from assumptions about the well-typedness of subterms. *) Lemma substitution_preserves_typing : forall Gamma x U v t S, (x |-> U ; Gamma) |- t \in S -> empty |- v \in U -> Gamma |- [x:=v]t \in S. Proof with eauto. intros Gamma x U v t S Htypt Htypv. generalize dependent S. generalize dependent Gamma. induction t; intros; simpl. - (* var *) rename s into y. destruct (typing_inversion_var _ _ _ Htypt) as [T [Hctx Hsub]]. unfold update, t_update in Hctx. destruct (eqb_stringP x y) as [Hxy|Hxy]; eauto; subst. inversion Hctx; subst. clear Hctx. apply context_invariance with empty... intros x Hcontra. destruct (free_in_context _ _ S empty Hcontra) as [T' HT']... inversion HT'. - (* app *) destruct (typing_inversion_app _ _ _ _ Htypt) as [T1 [Htypt1 Htypt2]]. eapply T_App... - (* abs *) rename s into y. rename t into T1. destruct (typing_inversion_abs _ _ _ _ _ Htypt) as [T2 [Hsub Htypt2]]. apply T_Sub with (Arrow T1 T2)... apply T_Abs... destruct (eqb_stringP x y) as [Hxy|Hxy]. + (* x=y *) eapply context_invariance... subst. intros x Hafi. unfold update, t_update. destruct (eqb_string y x)... + (* x<>y *) apply IHt. eapply context_invariance... intros z Hafi. unfold update, t_update. destruct (eqb_stringP y z)... subst. rewrite <- eqb_string_false_iff in Hxy. rewrite Hxy... - (* tru *) assert (Bool <: S) by apply (typing_inversion_true _ _ Htypt)... - (* fls *) assert (Bool <: S) by apply (typing_inversion_false _ _ Htypt)... - (* test *) assert ((x |-> U ; Gamma) |- t1 \in Bool /\ (x |-> U ; Gamma) |- t2 \in S /\ (x |-> U ; Gamma) |- t3 \in S) by apply (typing_inversion_if _ _ _ _ _ Htypt). inversion H as [H1 [H2 H3]]. apply IHt1 in H1. apply IHt2 in H2. apply IHt3 in H3. auto. - (* unit *) assert (Unit <: S) by apply (typing_inversion_unit _ _ Htypt)... Qed. (* Thu Jan 24 08:58:55 EST 2019 *)