We present parametric higher-order abstract syntax (PHOAS), a new approach to formalizing the syntax of programming languages in computer proof assistants based on type theory. Like higherorder abstract syntax (HOAS), PHOAS uses the meta language’s binding constructs to represent the object language’s binding constructs. Unlike HOAS, PHOAS types are definable in generalpurpose type theories that support traditional functional programming, like Coq’s Calculus of Inductive Constructions. We walk through how Coq can be used to develop certified, executable program transformations over several statically-typed functional programming languages formalized with PHOAS; that is, each transformation has a machine-checked proof of type preservation and semantic preservation. Our examples include CPS translation and closure conversion for simply-typed lambda calculus, CPS translation for System F, and translation from a language with ML-style pattern matching to a simpler language with no variable-arity binding constructs. By avoiding the syntactic hassle associated with first-order representation techniques, we achieve a very high degree of proof automation. Categories and Subject Descriptors F.3.1 [Logics and meanings

We present a foundation for a computational meta-theory of languages with bindings implemented in a computer-aided formal reasoning environment. Our theory provides the ability to reason abstractly about operators, languages, open-ended languages, classes of languages, etc. The theory is based on the ideas of higher-order abstract syntax, with an appropriate induction principle parameterized over the language (i.e. a set of operators) being used. In our approach, both the bound and free variables are treated uniformly and this uniform treatment extends naturally to variable-length bindings. The implementation is reflective, namely there is a natural mapping between the meta-language of the theorem-prover and the object language of our theory. The object language substitution operation is mapped to the meta-language substitution and does not need to be defined recursively. Our approach does not require designing a custom type theory; in this paper we describe the implementation of this foundational theory within a general-purpose type theory. This work is fully implemented in the MetaPRL theorem prover, using the pre-existing NuPRL-like MartinL of-style computational type theory. Based on this implementation, we lay out an outline for a framework for programming language experimentation and exploration as well as a general reflective reasoning framework. This paper also includes a short survey of the existing approaches to syntactic reflection. 1

We present an implementation of reflection for the Nuprl theorem prover, based on combining intuitions from programming languages and logical languages. We reflect a logical language, adapting the common practice from Lisp dialects of avoiding redundant coding whenever it is possible to expose internal functionality. In particular, concepts of the logical language such as term syntax and substitution are directly reflected as primitives. The resulting notation has both the expressiveness and the simplicity needed for ordinary syntactic explanations and arguments. The system is demonstrated by formalizing Tarski’s result regarding the internal undefinability of a Truth predicate, closely following a standard “paper proof”. We believe this shows to good effect our rather transparent quote-like notation, especially by exploiting colors. 1

MetaPRL is the latest system to come out of over twenty five years of research by the Cornell PRL group. While initially created at Cornell, MetaPRL is currently a collaborative project involving several universities in several countries. The MetaPRL system combines the properties of an interactive LCF-style tactic-based proof assistant, a logical framework, a logical programming environment, and a formal methods programming toolkit. MetaPRL is distributed under an open-source license and can be downloaded from http://metaprl.org/. This paper provides an overview of the system focusing on the features that did not exist in the previous generations of PRL systems.