blob: 56b24f2e4173e74de2768d18d238231dec9635ea (
plain)
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
|
\documentclass[../main.tex]{subfiles}
\begin{document}
\section{Writing ARTyST Programs}%
\label{sec:reducer}
We have used \lang{} to write two non-trivial programs that can be
embedded in System~T. The first is a fuelled reducer for
System~T. Given \(n\) units of fuel, the reducer will perform \(n\)
steps of complete~development~\cite{cd} on a System~T term. The second
program is the encoding from \lang{} to System~T. This takes a
type-annotated \lang{} program and encodes it as a System~T term.
\TODO{
\begin{itemize}
\item describe the syntactic sugar I have added
\end{itemize}
}
\subsection{Fuelled System~T Reducer}%
\label{subsec:reducer}
Given enough fuel to work with, a fuelled reducer takes a term as
input and reduces it to normal form. Our fuelled reducer operates
using term rewriting. For each unit of fuel, we perform one step of
complete development; we reduce \emph{all} beta redices in the input
term simultaneously. As System~T is confluent and strongly
normalising, complete development will converge on the normal form of
the input term.
\TODO{
\begin{itemize}
\item explain why fuel is necessary for the reducer
\item show some example snippets
\end{itemize}
}
\TODO{
\begin{itemize}
\item describe the inputs to the embedding
\item describe the output of the embedding
\item show a ``non-destructive'' fold
\item justify use of destructive folds
\end{itemize}
}
\TODO{
\begin{itemize}
\item describe why encoded terms have lots of beta redices
\item describe potential benefit of composing two programs
\item explain the limitiations of the reducer (e.g. eta and bools)
\end{itemize}
}
\end{document}
|
