Skip to main content

We don't need no stinking modules!

By
In my last post I described how unbelievably cool modules are in Coq. Well it turns out that there is some disagreement in the community about whether one should even use them!

Why? Because the type system in Coq is so powerful we hardly even need them. In fact with a bit of syntactic sugar for inductively defined types and the generation of constructors we magically get something like first class modules (first-class meaning modules that are actually values that can be passed around to functions etc...). Enter the Record. 

Record MonadBind : Type :=
  { M : forall (A : Type), Type;
    bind : forall (A B : Type), M A -> (A -> M B) -> M B; 
    ret : forall (A : Type), A -> M A; 
    left_unit : forall (A B : Type) (f : A -> M B) (a : A), 
      bind A B (ret A a) f = f a;
    right_unit : forall (A B : Type) (m : M A), 
      bind A A m (ret A) = m;
    bind_assoc : forall (A B C : Type) (m : M A) (f : A -> M B) (g : B -> M C) (x : B), 
      bind B C (bind A B m f) g = bind A C m (fun x => bind B C (f x) g)
  }.

This implements exactly the same strict controls on the instantiation of a Monad that were given with our MONAD signature in the previous post. Each type can rely on previously defined types in the record giving us the full dependent type system needed to specify a proper monad. With a little bit of work we can rewrite our module to be an instantiation of a record.

Look here for the example code

How cool is that!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Decidable Equality in Agda

By
So I've been playing with typing various things in System-F which previously I had left with auxiliary well-formedness conditions. This includes substitutions and contexts, both of which are interesting to have well typed versions of. Since I've been learning Agda, it seemed sensible to carry out this work in that language, as there is nothing like a problem to help you learn a language. In the course of proving properties, I ran into the age old problem of showing that equivalence is decidable between two objects. In this particular case, I need to be able to show the decidability of equality over types in System F in order to have formation rules for variable contexts. We'd like a context Γ to have (x:A) only if (x:B) does not occur in Γ when (A ≠ B). For us to have statements about whether two types are equal or not, we're going to need to be able to decide if that's true using a terminating procedure. And so we arrive at our story. In Coq, equality is ...
2 comments
Read more

Managing state in Prolog monadically, using DCGs.

By
Prolog is a beautiful language which makes a lot of irritating rudimentary rule application and search easy. I have found it is particularly nice when trying to deal with compilers which involve rule based transformation from a source language L to a target language L'. However, the management of these rules generally requires keeping track of a context, and this context has to be explicitly threaded through the entire application, which involves a lot of irritating and error prone sequence variables. This often leads to your code looking something a bit like this: compile(seq(a,b),(ResultA,ResultB),S0,S2) :- compile(a,ResultA,S0,S1), compile(b,ResultB,S1,S2). While not the worst thing, I've found it irritating and ugly, and I've made a lot of mistakes with incorrectly sequenced variables. It's much easier to see sequence made explicitly textually in the code. While they were not designed for this task, but rather for parsing, DCGs turn out to be a conveni...
Post a Comment
Read more

Judgemental Equality, Homotopy Type Theory and Supercompilation

By
Ok, time for some incredibly preliminary thoughts on judgemental equality and what it means for Supercompilation and what supercompilation in turn means for judgemental equality. The more that I explore equality the more incredibly strange the role it plays in type theory seems to be.  There seems intuitively to be nothing more simple than imagining two things to be identical, and yet it seems to be an endless source of complexity. This story starts with my dissertation, but I'm going to start at the end and work backwards towards the beginning.  Currently I've been reading  Homotopy Type Theory , now of some niche fame.  I put off reading about it for a long time because I generally don't like getting too bogged down in foundational principles or very abstract connections with other branches of mathematics (except perhaps on Sundays).  Being more of an engineer than a mathematician, I like my types to work for me, and dislike it when I do too much work for...
Post a Comment
Read more