(*************************************************************************)
(** * Language specification and variable binding *)
(*************************************************************************)
(** This tutorial demonstrates the use of the Coq proof assistant for reasoning about higher-order programming languages, such as those based on the lambda calculus, and their implementations. We use a simply-typed lambda calculus as a running example.  Reasoning about languages with first-class functions is difficult because of variable binding. In particular, there are two important complications that make working with lambda-terms difficult.  - First, we would like to work up to _alpha-equivalence_. In other words, we would like our reasoning about lambda terms to not depend on the names that we use for free variables.  For example, we would like to show that these two terms are indistinguishable to the semantics  [\x.x]  and  [\y.y]  - Second, substitution should be _capture avoiding_. When we substitute terms with free variables, those free variables should never become bound by the terms they are being substituted into. This means that sometimes we need to rename bound variables to avoid capture. For example,  [  [ z ~> \x.y ](\y.z) ]    should be   [  \y1.\x.y ] *)
(** ** Approaches to variable binding  Unfortunately, variable binding is an _old_ problem. The issue isn't that we don't know how to solve this problem, in fact there are _many_, _many_ different ways to solve this problem and they all have their trade offs. I won't include an entire taxonomy of solutions here, but before we go further, I want to mention a few relevant alternatives.  - Only working with closed terms, never reasoning about equivalence  If we never have to substitute an _open_ term, then we never have to worry about variable capture. We can represent binding variables in lambda terms using names in a straightforward manner. This approach is the simplest and side-steps the two problems shown above. For example, it can be used to show type soundness, as is done in Software Foundations.  However, this approach does not scale. For example, reasoning about compiler optimizations requires reasoning about the equivalence of transformed open terms.  - Named terms, with swapping  We can still work with named terms, even in the presence of free variables, as long as we _define_ alpha equivalence and substitution appropriately. There are, again, many approaches to these definitions. However, the most elegant approach is inspired by Nominal Logic.  - Locally nameless representation (LN)  When working in Coq, it is convenient to use a representation that makes all alpha-equivalent terms _definitionally_ equivalent. LN does this while still providing an interface that is mostly similar to paper proofs.  Other approaches to variable binding include de Bruijn indices, de Bruijn levels, weak HOAS, PHOAS, locally named, canonically named... etc. Of these, de Bruijn representations are by far the most commonly used representation in Coq. *)
(** ** Overview  In this tutorial, we will promote the following approach to variable binding.  - Use a locally nameless representation to _specify_ and reason about the semantics  - Use a named representation to _implement_ environment-based interpreters for lambda calculus terms. If binders are mostly unique, then this implementation avoids additional work.  - The definitions, lemmas and proofs that are needed to work with lambda-calculus terms are highly automatable.   In the first part of the tutorial, we will demonstrate the use of a locally nameless representation to reason about a specification of a call-by-name lambda calculus. We will state the operational semantics of this language using a small-step substitution-based inductive relation.  We will use this specification for metatheoretic reasoning: we will prove _preservation_ and _progress_ as in Software Foundations.  Next, we will represent the same language using a _nominal representation_ but specify the semantics using an abstract machine. This abstract machine is given as a Coq function from machine configurations to machine configurations, and can be used as an efficient interpreter. This abstract machine features a heap (i.e. runtime environment for variables) so we will not need to define capture-avoiding substitution as part of our semantics.  Finally, we will prove that the abstract machine implements the same semantics as the locally nameless based substitution semantics. *)
(** ** Tool support  The development of this tutorial draws from two coordinating tools that support working with LN representations.  The Ott tool provides a direct way of generating LN language definitions from a simple specification language.  The file [stlc.ott] contains the input specification of the language of this tutorial.  [Definitions.v] is a commented version of the Ott output. (For comparison, the raw output is in [Stlc.v]).  The same specifications can also be used to produce LaTeX macros for typesetting language definitions, demonstrated in [stlc.pdf].   The LNgen tool works with Ott to generate a number of lemmas and auxiliary definitions for working with LN terms. The file [Lemmas.v] is commented version of that output. (For comparison, the raw output is in [Stlc_inf.v].) *)
(*************************************************************************)
(** * The simply-typed lambda calculus in Coq. *)
(*************************************************************************)
(** First, we import a number of definitions from the Metatheory library (see Metatheory.v).  The following command makes those definitions available in the rest of this file.  This command will only succeed if you have already run [make] and [make install] in the Metatheory directory to compile the Metatheory library. *)
(** Next, we import the definitions of the simply-typed lambda calculus. If you haven't skimmed this file yet, you should do so now. You don't need to understand everything in the file at first, but you will need to refer back to it in the material below. *)
(** And some notations (defined in `Stlc.Definitions`), but not automatically brought into scope. *)
(** Make the Case tactic available. *)
(** For the examples below, we introduce some sample variable names to play with. *)
Definition X : atom := fresh nil.
Definition Y : atom := fresh (X :: nil).
Definition Z : atom := fresh (X :: Y :: nil).
(*************************************************************************)
(** ** Encoding STLC terms *)
(*************************************************************************)
(** We start with examples of encodings in STLC.  For example, we can encode the expression [(\x. Y x)] as below. We use the index [0] because it refers to the closest [abs] to the bound variable occurrence. *)
Definition demo_rep1 := abs (app (var_f Y) (var_b 0)).
(*                       ^                        |                   *)
(*                       |                        |                   *)
(*                       --------------------------                   *)
(**  Here is another example: the encoding of [(\x. \y. (y x))].      *)
Definition demo_rep2 := abs (abs (app (var_b 0) (var_b 1))).
(*                       ^    ^              |         |              *)
(*                       |    |              |         |              *)
(*                       |    ----------------         |              *)
(*                       |                             |              *)
(*                       -------------------------------              *)
(** Finally, here is an example where the same bound variable has two different indices, and the same index refers to two different bound variables. [\y. ((\x. (x y)) y)]                        *)
Definition demo_rep3 :=
abs (app (abs (app (var_b 0) (var_b 1))) (var_b 0)).
(*          ^         ^              |         |           |          *)
(*          |         |              |         |           |          *)
(*          |         ----------------         |           |          *)
(*          |                                  |           |          *)
(*          ------------------------------------------------          *)
(** *** Exercise: term representation  Define the following lambda calculus terms using the locally nameless representation.  "two" : \s. \z. s (s z)  "COMB_K" : \x. \y. x  "COMB_S" : \x. \y. \z. x z (y z)  *)
(* SOLUTION *)
Definition two
:= abs (abs (app (var_b 1) (app (var_b 1) (var_b 0)))).
Definition COMB_K :=
abs (abs (var_b 1)).
Definition COMB_S :=
abs (abs (abs
(app (app (var_b 2) (var_b 0)) (app (var_b 1) (var_b 0))))).
(* /SOLUTION *)
(** There are two important advantages of the locally nameless representation: - Alpha-equivalent terms have a unique representation. We're always working up to alpha-equivalence. - Operations such as free variable substitution and free variable calculation have simple recursive definitions (and therefore are simple to reason about).  Weighed against these advantages are two drawbacks: - The [exp] datatype admits terms, such as [abs 3], where indices are unbound. A term is called "locally closed" when it contains no unbound indices. - We must define *both* bound variable & free variable substitution and reason about how these operations interact with each other. *)
(*************************************************************************)
(** ** Substitution *)
(*************************************************************************)
(* FULL *)
(** The substitution function replaces a free variable with a term.  For simplicity, we define a notation for free variable substitution that mimics standard mathematical notation.  *)
Check [Y ~> var_f Z](abs (app (var_b 0)(var_f Y))).
(** To demonstrate how free variable substitution works, we need to reason about var equality. *)
Check (Y == Z).
(** The decidable var equality function returns a sum. If the two vars are equal, the left branch of the sum is returned, carrying a proof of the proposition that the vars are equal.  If they are not equal, the right branch includes a proof of the disequality.  The demo below uses three new tactics: - The tactic [simpl] reduces a Coq expression to its normal form. - The tactic [destruct (Y==Y)] considers the two possible results of the equality test. *)
(* /FULL *)
Example demo_subst1:
[Y ~> var_f Z] (abs (app (var_b 0) (var_f Y))) = (abs (app (var_b 0) (var_f Z))).
(** *** Exercise [subst_eq_var]  We can use almost the same proof script as above to show how substitution works in the variable case. Try it on your own.  *)
(** *** Exercise [subst_neq_var] *)
(** *** Exercise [subst_same] *)

Lemma subst_same : forall y e, [y ~> var_f y] e = e.