# Developing Dependently Typed Programs in Agda - Part 3

** Published:**

And finally I’ve decided to start the third part of my post series on *Developing Dependently Typed Programs in Agda*. In this post, I’ll explain how to use Agda to develop a certified interpreter for the simply typed \(\lambda\)-calculus.

# The simply typed \(\lambda\)-calculus

In a very simplistic way, the simply typed \(lambda\)-calculus can be seen as a bare-bones statically typed functional programming language without polymorphism. By statically typed, I mean that every that error can be detected by a compiler without running the code, a very desirable property.

In this section I’ll describe the syntax, semantics and type rules for the calculus using math notation.

## Syntax definition

We will consider a \(\lambda\)-calculus with one base type: boolean. In our definitions, we will use the following convention for meta-variable usage: \(\tau\) will denote types;\(x\), variables; \(e\), term expressions. All these meta-variables can appear primed or subscripted.

Syntax for types is given below:

\[ \begin{array}{lcl} \tau & ::= & \texttt{Bool}

& \mid & \tau \to \tau

\end{array} \]

Term syntax have boolean constants and usual variables, abstraction and application.

\[ \begin{array}{lcll} e & ::= & true

& \mid & false

& \mid & x

&\mid & \lambda x : \tau. e

& \mid & e : e

\end{array} \]

## Semantics

The semantics that we will consider is a traditional call-by-value small-step semantics. We will denote the semantics as a relation ((e \Rightarrow e’)), that means “\(e\) can take a step of evaluation and produce \(e’\)”. Before presenting the semantic rules, we need to specify what are the values of the language. In semantics, we consider as values terms that can be seen as a answer to the program executed. As usual, we wil consider as values abstractions and boolean constants (values will be represented by meta-variable \(v\)):

\[ \begin{array}{lcl} v & ::= & \lambda x. e

& \mid & true

& \mid & false \end{array} \]

The main issue on operational semantics for \(\lambda\)-calculus is the so-called \(\beta\) reduction that allow us to perform computation in a application:

\[ (\lambda x : \tau .e): v \Rightarrow [x \mapsto v]:e \]

Note that, we always perform \(beta\) reductions on applications formed by a abstraction (obvious…) and a value, i.e., in order to reduce a application, its argument must be fully reduced.

A next obvious questions is how to reduce a application that does not fit this previous “shape”? This is done by these following rules:

\[ \frac{e_{1} \Rightarrow e_{1}’}{e_{1}e_{2}\Rightarrow e_{1}’ e_{2}} \]

\[ \frac{e_{2} \Rightarrow e_{2}’}{v_{1}e_{2}\Rightarrow v_{1} e_{2}’} \]

Together, these rules show that in any application, we must reduce its left hand side until we reach a value and only then, we reduce its right hand side.

Using these rules, we should be able to reduce any *typeable* term until we reach a value. But, for untypeable terms, we can reach a *normal form* (a term that cannot be further reduced) that isn’t a value. An example of a normal form that isn’t a value is *true false*. Normal forms that aren’t values are usually called stuck terms. The motivation for the use of type systems in programming languages is to statically detect stuck terms, since these terms does not have a well defined semantics, they can produce weird results when executed by a machine.

In the next subsection, I’ll explain the type system for the simply typed \(\lambda\)-calculus.

## Type system

The type system for the simply typed \(\lambda\)-calculus is a syntax directed proof system for deduce judgements of the form \(\Gamma \vdash e : \tau\). The meta-variable \((\Gamma\) stands for a typing context. A typing context is a set of pairs formed by variables and their types. Usually, we represente such pairs by \(x : \tau\).

Now we proceed to type system itself. Type rules for boolean constants are obvious:

\[ \frac{}{\Gamma \vdash true : \texttt{Bool}} \]

\[ \frac{}{\Gamma \vdash false : \texttt{Bool}} \]

We can say that a variable \(x\) is well typed if it has an assumption in typing context \(\Gamma\):

\[ \frac{x : \tau \in \Gamma}{\Gamma\vdash x : \tau} \]

A abstraction is well typed if we can type its body using as additional assumption its parameter:

\[ \frac{\Gamma,x : \tau’ \vdash e : \tau}{\Gamma \vdash \lambda x : \tau’ .e : \tau’ \to \tau} \] The notation \(\Gamma,x : \tau’\) means \(\Gamma \cup \{x : \tau’\}\). Finally, a application is well typed if its parameter type matches the argument type.

\[ \frac{\Gamma \vdash e : \tau’ \to \tau\qquad \Gamma\vdash e’ : \tau’}{\Gamma\vdash e\ e’ : \tau} \]

These rules are sufficient to ensure the following properties:

**Progress**: If \( \Gamma\vdash e : \tau \) then \( e \) is a value or exists \( e’ \) such that \(e \Rightarrow e’\).

**Preservation**: If \( \Gamma\vdash e : \tau \) e \(e \Rightarrow e’\) then \(\Gamma\vdash e’ : \tau \).

The first property ensures that any well typed term isn’t stuck and the second, that evaluation preserves types. Together, these properties, ensures that any well typed program does not “crash” when executed, a fact that many programming languages does not have.

Next, I’ll describe how to implement this whole theory using Agda.

# Agda Implementation

## Syntax

In order to represent the \(\lambda\)-calculus syntax, I’ll follow a quite standard approach, representing variables using DeBruijn indexes. Basically, the idea is to representing variables by a natural number that represents that the current variable is bound to the k’th enclosing \(\lambda\).

Exp’s constructors have a straightforward meaning: *const* represents boolean constants; *var*, variables; *abs* , abstractions and *app*, applications. Note that in *abs* constructor, note that we **must** provide parameter’s type. Otherwise, we’ll need to deal with unification, that is a other history…

Type syntax has a straightforward definition:

We’ll represent typing contexts using lists:

## Type checker

The diligent reader may have noticed that our contexts only store types, but what about variable identifiers? Since variables are DeBruijn indexes, they are just natural numbers, or even better, a position of its corresponding type in a typing context! We’ll explore this fact using the following data type will be used to represent context membership proofs:

Using this type, we can retrive a variable index:

Now, we are ready to define a data type to represent the result of a lookup function.

The data type *Lookup* encode two possible results of looking up a position in a list: the position can be inside the list - constructor **inside**; or the position is outside the list - constructor **outside**. The *inside* constructor takes a proof that some value *x* is in the list *xs* and indexes the *Lookup* type by the list position induced by such a proof. A position is outside the list, if it is greater or equal the list length.

With all equipment set, we can implement a lookup function that returns a value of type *Lookup*, that give us a lot of information about list searching execution.

Next, the following type represent type derivations:

From a given type derivation, we can get its corresponding term using a erasure fuction:

The result of a type-checker execution is given by the following type:

A type checker can only give two possible results: success, if the term passed is typable or failure, if the term is untypeable. These two situations are expressed by the constructors of *TypeCheck* data type.

Now, we can finally proceed to the type checking function:

The constants case are immediate. Next, we deal with the variable case. To search the typing context, we will use *lookup* function, and return the appropriate value of *TypeCheck* in each situation.

In abstraction case, we just call the type checking function recursively for abstraction body and a modified typing context with abstraction parameter type.

The last case of type checking function, deals with applications. In applications, we must call the type checker recursively for two components and check if

```
1. The left component must be a function type.
2. The right component type must match the left component function
argument type.
3 . The components must be type correct. Each equation deals with one of these three options, respectively.
```

## Interpreter

Implementing interpreters in total languages is a rather problematic task, due to totality restrictions. Other complication with a interpreter for \(\lambda\)-calculus is dealing with substitution. But, do not fear… We can use a very smart trick to interpret \(\lambda\)-calculus. The idea is to interpret \(\lambda\) calculus types as Agda types. This translation is given bellow:

Now, we need to translate contexts to right nested tuples of types ended with a *tt*, a trivial value of trivial type.

The translation of context membership proofs to a type is done by the following function.

Glueing all pieces, we built the interpreter. The idea is simple: translate \(\lambda\) terms to its corresponding Agda terms using the previous semantic interpretation functions.

Note that abstraction is translated to a anonymous function and application, to a application. Simple, no?

# Conclusion

In this post I give a simple formalization of the simply \(\lambda\)-calculus in Agda. I have formalized its type checker and give a simple interpreter based on an denotational semantics of the \(\lambda\) calculus.