1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390

(** * StronglySpecified Functions in Coq, part 1: using the <<refine>> Tactic
This is the first article (initially published on #<span
class="time">January 11, 2015</span>#) of a series of two on how to write
stronglyspecified functions in Coq. You can read the next part #<a
href="./StronglySpecifiedFunctionsProgram.html">here</a>#. *)
(** I started to play with Coq, the interactive theorem prover
developed by Inria, a few weeks ago. It is a very powerful tool,
yet hard to master. Fortunately, there are some very good readings
if you want to learn (I recommend the Coq'Art). This article is
not one of them.
In this article, we will see how to implement stronglyspecified
list manipulation functions in Coq. Strong specifications are used
to ensure some properties on functions' arguments and return
value. It makes Coq type system very expressive. Thus, it is
possible to specify in the type of the function [pop] that the
return value is the list passed in argument in which the first
element has been removed for example.
#<div id="generatetoc"></div>#
#<div id="history">site/posts/StronglySpecifiedFunctions.v</div># *)
(** ** Is this list empty? *)
(** Since we will manipulate lists in this article, we first
enable several notations of the standard library. *)
From Coq Require Import List.
Import ListNotations.
(** It's the first question to deal with when manipulating
lists. There are some functions that require their arguments not
to be empty. It's the case for the [pop] function, for instance:
it is not possible to remove the first element of a list that does
not have any elements in the first place.
When one wants to answer such a question as “Is this list empty?”,
he has to keep in mind that there are two ways to do it: by a
predicate or by a boolean function. Indeed, [Prop] and [bool] are
two different worlds that do not mix easily. One solution is to
write two definitions and to prove their equivalence. That is
[forall args, predicate args <> bool_function args = true].
Another solution is to use the [sumbool] type as middleman. The
scheme is the following:
 Defining [predicate : args → Prop]
 Defining [predicate_dec : args > { predicate args } + { ~predicate args }]
 Defining [predicate_b]:
<<
Definition predicate_b (args) :=
if predicate_dec args then true else false.
>> *)
(** *** Defining the <<empty>> predicate *)
(** A list is empty if it is [[]] ([nil]). It's as simple as that! *)
Definition empty {a} (l : list a) : Prop := l = [].
(** *** Defining a decidable version of <<empty>> *)
(** A decidable version of [empty] is a function which takes a list
[l] as its argument and returns either a proof that [l] is empty,
or a proof that [l] is not empty. This is encoded in the Coq
standard library with the [sumbool] type, and is written as
follows: [{ empty l } + { ~ empty l }]. *)
Definition empty_dec {a} (l : list a)
: { empty l } + { ~ empty l }.
Proof.
refine (match l with
 [] => left _ _
 _ => right _ _
end);
unfold empty; trivial.
unfold not; intro H; discriminate H.
Defined.
(** In this example, I decided to use the [refine] tactic which is
convenient when we manipulate the [Set] and [Prop] sorts at the
same time. *)
(** *** Defining <<empty_b>> *)
(** With [empty_dec], we can define [empty_b]. *)
Definition empty_b {a} (l : list a) : bool :=
if empty_dec l then true else false.
(** Let's try to extract [empty_b]:
<<
type bool =
 True
 False
type sumbool =
 Left
 Right
type 'a list =
 Nil
 Cons of 'a * 'a list
(** val empty_dec : 'a1 list > sumbool **)
let empty_dec = function
 Nil > Left
 Cons (a, l0) > Right
(** val empty_b : 'a1 list > bool **)
let empty_b l =
match empty_dec l with
 Left > True
 Right > False
>>
In addition to <<list 'a>>, Coq has created the <<sumbool>> and
<<bool>> types and [empty_b] is basically a translation from the
former to the latter. We could have stopped with [empty_dec], but
[Left] and [Right] are less readable that [True] and [False]. Note
that it is possible to configure the Extraction mechanism to use
primitive OCaml types instead, but this is out of the scope of
this article. *)
(** ** Defining some utility functions *)
(** *** Defining [pop] *)
(** There are several ways to write a function that removes the first
element of a list. One is to return `nil` if the given list was
already empty: *)
Definition pop {a} ( l :list a) :=
match l with
 _ :: l => l
 [] => []
end.
(** But it's not really satisfying. A `pop` call over an empty list
should not be possible. It can be done by adding an argument to
`pop`: the proof that the list is not empty. *)
(* begin hide *)
Reset pop.
(* end hide *)
Definition pop {a} (l : list a) (h : ~ empty l)
: list a.
(** There are, as usual when it comes to lists, two cases to
consider.
 [l = x :: rst], and therefore [pop (x :: rst) h] is [rst]
 [l = []], which is not possible since we know [l] is not empty.
The challenge is to convince Coq that our reasoning is
correct. There are, again, several approaches to achieve that. We
can, for instance, use the [refine] tactic again, but this time we
need to know a small trick to succeed as using a “regular” [match]
will not work.
From the following goal:
<<
a : Type
l : list a
h : ~ empty l
============================
list a
>> *)
(** Using the [refine] tactic naively, for instance this way: *)
refine (match l with
 _ :: rst => rst
 [] => _
end).
(** leaves us the following goal to prove:
<<
a : Type
l : list a
h : ~ empty l
============================
list a
>>
Nothing has changed! Well, not exactly. See, [refine] has taken
our incomplete Gallina term, found a hole, done some
typechecking, found that the type of the missing piece of our
implementation is [list a] and therefore has generated a new
goal of this type. What [refine] has not done, however, is
remember that we are in the case where [l = []]!
We need to generate a goal from a hole wherein this information is
available. It is possible using a long form of [match]. The
general approach is this: rather than returning a value of type
[list a], our match will return a function of type [l = ?l' >
list a], where [?l] is value of [l] for a given case (that is,
either [x :: rst] or [[]]). Of course, As a consequence, the type
of the [match] in now a function which awaits a proof to return
the expected result. Fortunately, this proof is trivial: it is
[eq_refl]. *)
(* begin hide *)
Undo.
(* end hide *)
refine (match l as l'
return l = l' > list a
with
 _ :: rst => fun _ => rst
 [] => fun equ => _
end eq_refl).
(** For us to conclude the proof, this is way better.
<<
a : Type
l : list a
h : ~ empty l
equ : l = []
============================
list a
>>
We conclude the proof, and therefore the definition of [pop]. *)
rewrite equ in h.
exfalso.
now apply h.
Defined.
(** It's better and yet it can still be improved. Indeed, according to its type,
[pop] returns “some list”. As a matter of fact, [pop] returns “the
same list without its first argument”. It is possible to write
such precise definition thanks to sigmatypes, defined as:
<<
Inductive sig (A : Type) (P : A > Prop) : Type :=
exist : forall (x : A), P x > sig P.
>>
Rather that [sig A p], sigmatypes can be written using the
notation [{ a  P }]. They express subsets, and can be used to constraint
arguments and results of functions.
We finally propose a stronglyspecified definition of [pop]. *)
(* begin hide *)
Reset pop.
(* end hide *)
Definition pop {a} (l : list a  ~ empty l)
: { l'  exists a, proj1_sig l = cons a l' }.
(** If you think the previous use of [match] term was ugly, brace yourselves. *)
refine (match proj1_sig l as l'
return proj1_sig l = l'
> { l'  exists a, proj1_sig l = cons a l' }
with
 [] => fun equ => _
 (_ :: rst) => fun equ => exist _ rst _
end eq_refl).
(** This leaves us two goals to tackle.
First, we need to discard the case where [l] is the empty list.
<<
a : Type
l : {l : list a  ~ empty l}
equ : proj1_sig l = []
============================
{l' : list a  exists a0 : a, proj1_sig l = a0 :: l'}
>> *)
+ destruct l as [l nempty]; cbn in *.
rewrite equ in nempty.
exfalso.
now apply nempty.
(** Then, we need to prove that the result we provide ([rst]) when the
list is not empty is correct with respect to the specification of
[pop].
<<
a : Type
l : {l : list a  ~ empty l}
a0 : a
rst : list a
equ : proj1_sig l = a0 :: rst
============================
exists a1 : a, proj1_sig l = a1 :: rst
>> *)
+ destruct l as [l nempty]; cbn in *.
rewrite equ.
now exists a0.
Defined.
(** Let's have a look at the extracted code:
<<
(** val pop : 'a1 list > 'a1 list **)
let pop = function
 Nil > assert false (* absurd case *)
 Cons (a, l0) > l0
>>
If one tries to call [pop nil], the [assert] ensures the call fails. Extra
information given by the sigmatype have been stripped away. It can be
confusing, and in practice it means that, we you rely on the extraction
mechanism to provide a certified OCaml module, you _cannot expose
stronglyspecified functions in its public interface_ because nothing in the
OCaml type system will prevent a miseuse which will in practice leads to an
<<assert false>>. *)
(** ** Defining [push] *)
(** It is possible to specify [push] the same way [pop] has been. The only
difference is [push] accepts lists with no restriction at all. Thus, its
definition is a simpler, and we can write it without [refine]. *)
Definition push {a} (l : list a) (x : a)
: { l'  l' = x :: l } :=
exist _ (x :: l) eq_refl.
(** And the extracted code is just as straightforward.
<<
let push l a =
Cons (a, l)
>> *)
(** ** Defining [head] *)
(** Same as [pop] and [push], it is possible to add extra information in the
type of [head], namely the returned value of [head] is indeed the firt value
of [l]. *)
Definition head {a} (l : list a  ~ empty l)
: { x  exists r, proj1_sig l = x :: r }.
(** It's not a surprise its definition is very close to [pop]. *)
refine (match proj1_sig l as l'
return proj1_sig l = l' > _
with
 [] => fun equ => _
 x :: _ => fun equ => exist _ x _
end eq_refl).
(** The proof are also very similar, and are left to read as an exercise for
passionate readers. *)
+ destruct l as [l falso]; cbn in *.
rewrite equ in falso.
exfalso.
now apply falso.
+ exists l0.
now rewrite equ.
Defined.
(** Finally, the extracted code is as straightforward as it can get.
<<
let head = function
 Nil > assert false (* absurd case *)
 Cons (a, l0) > a
>> *)
(** ** Conclusion & Moving Forward *)
(** Writing stronglyspecified functions allows for reasoning about the result
correctness while computing it. This can help in practice. However, writing
these functions with the [refine] tactic does not enable a very idiomatic
Coq code.
To improve the situation, the <<Program>> framework distributed with the Coq
standard library helps, but it is better to understand what <<Program>> achieves
under its hood, which is basically what we have done in this article. *)
