Syntax With Binders

Syntax With Binders

COS 441

Princeton University

Fall 2004

Quick Review About Binding

• Difference between bound and free variables x. (x + y)

• -equivalencex. x = y. y

• Capture avoiding substitution

(( x.(x + y)) x) ! (( z. (z + y)) x) ! z. (x + y)

Binding in General

• Generalize the rules about binding and substitutions for the -calculus to cover other programming languages that uses binding

• Harper introduces the general notion of an abstract binding trees (ABTs)

• ABTs generalize what we know about abstract syntax trees (ASTs)

ASTs vs ABTs

• ASTs do not describe binding or scope of variables

• Both defined by signature that maps operators to arities

• AST arity is just a natural number

• ABT arity sequence of valences

• Every AST is an ABT

ASTs

Variables x 2 …

Numbers n 2 N

Expressions e ::= num[n] | plus(e1,e2) | times(e1,e2)

| let(e1,x.e2) | x

Operator Arity

num[n] 0

times 2

plus 2

Encoding Binders with ASTs

Names x 2 …Numbers n 2 N


| let(x,e1,e2) | var[x]

Operator Arity

num[n] 0

times 2

plus 2

let 3

var[x] 0

Encoding Binders with ASTs

Names x 2 …Numbers n 2 N


| let(x,e1,e2) | var[x]

let(x1,num[1],

let(x2,num[2],

plus(var[x1],var[x2])))

let val x = 1 val y = 2in x + yend

Concrete Syntax Abstract Syntax Tree

Equality of ASTs

The AST below are not equal

let(x1,num[1],

let(x2,num[2],


let(x2,num[1],

let(x1,num[2],


Encoding Binders with ABTs

Names x 2 …

Numbers n 2 N


| let(e1,x.e2) | x

name abstractor


Names x 2 …

Numbers n 2 N


| let(e1,x.e2) | x

let(num[1],x1.

let(num[2],x2.

plus(x1,x2)))

let val x = 1 val y = 2in x + yend

Concrete Syntax Abstract Binding Tree

Equality of ABTs

The ABTs below are -equal

let(num[1],x1.

let(num[2],x2.

plus(x1,x2)))

let(num[1],x2.

let(num[2],x1.

plus(x2,x1)))


Names x 2 *

Numbers n 2 N


| let(e1,x.e2) | x

Operator Arity

num[n] ()

times

plus

let


Names x 2 *

Numbers n 2 N


| let(e1,x.e2) | x

Operator Arity

num[n] ()

times (0,0)

plus (0,0)

let


Names x 2 *

Numbers n 2 N


| let(e1,x.e2) | x

Operator Arity

num[n] ()

times (0,0)

plus (0,0)

let (0,1)

Pure -calculus as an ABT

Names x 2 …Expressions e ::= lam(x.e) | apply(e1,e2)| x

Operator Arity

lam ??

apply ??



Operator Arity

lam (1)

apply (0,0)



X expX name

V

apply(E1,E2)exp

E1 exp E2 expA

lam(X.E)exp

X name E expL

Free Names in -calculus

FN(X) {X}

FN(apply(E1,E2)) FN(E1) [ FN(E2)

FN(lam(X.E)) FN(E) n {X}


FN(X) {X}



FN(apply(F,lam(X.X)))


FN(X) {X}




FN(F) [ FN(lam(X.X))


FN(X) {X}





{F} [ (FN(X) n FN(X))


FN(X) {X}





{F} [ (FN(X) n FN(X))

{F} [ ({X} n {X})


FN(X) {X}





{F} [ (FN(X) n FN(X))

{F} [ ({X} n {X}) {F} [ {} {F}

Capture Avoiding Substitution

• Capture avoid substitution defined using two other relations

• The first is apartness E1 # E2 when FN(E1) Å FN(E2) = {}

The unbound variables of terms are distinct

• The swapping of one name for another[X $ Y] E

Swapping Names in -calculus [X $ Y] X Y

[X $ Y] Y X

[X $ Y] Z Z (if Z # X, Z # Y)

[X $ Y] apply(E1,E2) apply([X $ Y] E1,

[X $ Y] E2))

[X $ Y] lam(Z.E) lam([X $ Y] Z.

[X $ Y] E)


[X $ Y] Y X

[X $ Y] Z Z (if Z # X, Z # Y)


[X $ Y] E2))


[X $ Y] E)

[X $ Y] lam(X.lam(Y.apply(X,Z))

lam(Y.lam(X.apply(Y,Z))


[X $ Y] Y X

[X $ Y] Z Z (if Z # X, Z # Y)


[X $ Y] E2))


[X $ Y] E)

[X $ Y] lam(X.lam(Y.apply(X,Z))

??


[X $ Y] Y X

[X $ Y] Z Z (if Z # X, Z # Y)


[X $ Y] E2))


[X $ Y] E)

[X $ Z] lam(X.lam(Y.apply(X,Z))

??


[X $ Y] Y X

[X $ Y] Z Z (if Z # X, Z # Y)


[X $ Y] E2))


[X $ Y] E)

[X $ Z] lam(X.lam(Y.apply(X,Z))

lam(Z.lam(Y.apply(Z,X))

Capture Avoiding Substitution[X Ã E] X E

[X Ã E] Y Y (if Y # X)

[X Ã E] apply(E1,E2) apply([X Ã E] E1,

[X Ã E] E2))

[X Ã E] lam(Y.E’) lam(Y.[X Ã E] E’)

(if Y # E)

Induction Principle for ABTs

• Induction principle for ABT slightly more complex

• Two different induction hypotheses– P(E) for raw ABT– PA(n,E) for ABT abstractor of valence n

• Induction principle lets us rename bound variable names at will – Technicalities are not so important for this

course

ABTs in SML

• ASTs can easily be encoded directly in SML with datatype

• Unfortunately there is no good direct encoding of ABTs into SML– Must first encode ABT as an AST– Globally rename all names to avoid conflicts

• Active area of research to provided better programming language support– See http://www.freshml.org

http://www.freshml.org/

Why Learn About ABTs

• Lack of direct support of ABTs in SML is annoying

• ABTs are a useful abstraction when specifying programming languages– All scoping and renaming rules come built in

with the semantics of ABT– Rigorous theory of induction for ABTs



X expX name

V

apply(E1,E2)exp

E1 exp E2 expA

lam(X.E)exp

X name E expL

Pure -calculus as an AST

Names x 2 …Expressions e ::= lam(x,e) | apply(e1,e2)| var[x]

var[X] expX name

V

apply(E1,E2)exp

E1 exp E2 expA

lam(X,E)exp

X name E expL

Pure -calculus in SML

Names x 2 …Expressions e ::= lam(x,e) | apply(e1,e2)| var[x]

Pure -calculus in SML

Names x 2 *

Expressions e ::= lam(x,e) | apply(e1,e2)| var[x]

type name (* abstract type *)

Pure -calculus in SMLtype name (* abstract type *)datatype exp = Lam of (name * exp) | Apply of (exp * exp) | Var of (name)

val eq_alpha : (exp * exp) -> boolval subst : (var * exp * exp)

-> exp val free_vars : exp -> var list

Pure -calculus in SMLtype name (* abstract type *)datatype exp = Lam of (name * exp) | Apply of (exp * exp) | Var of (name)

val fresh : unit -> nameval name_eq : (name * name) -> boolval alpha_cvt : exp -> expval subst : (name * exp * exp)

-> exp

Static Semantics

• Before we can define the precise meaning of a program we must rule non-sense programs

• The meaning of a program is only defined for well-formed programs

• Example: A program is well-formed if it contains no free names

Static Semantics for -calculus


` X okX 2

ok-V

` apply(E1,E2)ok

` E1 ok ` E2 okok-A

` lam(X.E)ok

[ {X} ` E ok X ok-L

Syntax Directed Rules

• The ok relation is syntax directed – Exactly one rule for each case of the abt

• Syntax directed rules guarantee goal-directed search always succeeds or fails– Won’t get into infinite loop– Either find a derivation or find out something

is not derivable

• Syntax directed rules are easier to implement in SML

Syntax Directed Rules (cont.)

• A set of rules is syntax directed with respect to a certain set of syntax trees– If for every derivable judgment there is a

unique derivation tree that mirrors the original syntax tree

• Definition of syntax directed is a bit vague but basically means goal directed search is easy to carry out

Static Semantics/Type Checking

• The relation ` E ok is very simple and only to illustrate a general pattern we will see later

• We will define a more interesting relation ` E : T

where T is the type of the expression• Well typed programs will be free from certain

runtime errors– We must define a semantics of program execution to

understand what that means precisely– Next lecture will be about program execution

Syntax With Binders

Documents

Transcript of Syntax With Binders