Results 1 
5 of
5
Pure Pattern Type Systems
 In POPL’03
, 2003
"... We introduce a new framework of algebraic pure type systems in which we consider rewrite rules as lambda terms with patterns and rewrite rule application as abstraction application with builtin matching facilities. This framework, that we call “Pure Pattern Type Systems”, is particularly wellsuite ..."
Abstract

Cited by 43 (20 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We introduce a new framework of algebraic pure type systems in which we consider rewrite rules as lambda terms with patterns and rewrite rule application as abstraction application with builtin matching facilities. This framework, that we call “Pure Pattern Type Systems”, is particularly wellsuited for the foundations of programming (meta)languages and proof assistants since it provides in a fully unified setting higherorder capabilities and pattern matching ability together with powerful type systems. We prove some standard properties like confluence and subject reduction for the case of a syntactic theory and under a syntactical restriction over the shape of patterns. We also conjecture the strong normalization of typable terms. This work should be seen as a contribution to a formal connection between logics and rewriting, and a step towards new proof engines based on the CurryHoward isomorphism.
Typed Generic Traversal With Term Rewriting Strategies
 Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming
, 2002
"... A typed model of strategic term rewriting is developed. The key innovation is that generic. The calculus traversal is covered. To this end, we define a typed rewriting calculus S ′ γ employs a manysorted type system extended by designated generic strategy types γ. We consider two generic strategy t ..."
Abstract

Cited by 26 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A typed model of strategic term rewriting is developed. The key innovation is that generic. The calculus traversal is covered. To this end, we define a typed rewriting calculus S ′ γ employs a manysorted type system extended by designated generic strategy types γ. We consider two generic strategy types, namely the types of typepreserving and typeunifying strategies. S ′ γ offers traversal combinators to construct traversals or schemes thereof from manysorted and generic strategies. The traversal combinators model different forms of onestep traversal, that is, they process the immediate subterms of a given term without anticipating any scheme of recursion into terms. To inhabit generic types, we need to add a fundamental combinator to lift a manysorted strategy s to a generic type γ. This step is called strategy extension. The semantics of the corresponding combinator states that s is only applied if the type of the term at hand fits, otherwise the extended strategy fails. This approach dictates that the semantics of strategy application must be typedependent to a certain extent. Typed strategic term rewriting with coverage of generic term traversal is a simple but expressive model of generic programming. It has applications in program
Fixed points of type constructors and primitive recursion
 Computer Science Logic, 18th International Workshop, CSL 2004, 13th Annual Conference of the EACSL, Karpacz, Poland, September 2024, 2004, Proceedings, volume 3210 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science
, 2004
"... Our contribution to CSL 04 [AM04] contains a little error, which is easily corrected by 2 elementary editing steps (replacing one character and deleting another). Definition of wellformed contexts (fifth page). Typing contexts should, in contrast to kinding contexts, only contain type variable decla ..."
Abstract

Cited by 7 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Our contribution to CSL 04 [AM04] contains a little error, which is easily corrected by 2 elementary editing steps (replacing one character and deleting another). Definition of wellformed contexts (fifth page). Typing contexts should, in contrast to kinding contexts, only contain type variable declarations without variance information. Hence, the second rule is too liberal; we must insist on p = ◦. The corrected set of rules is then: ⋄ cxt ∆ cxt ∆, X ◦κ cxt ∆ cxt ∆ ⊢ A: ∗ ∆, x:A cxt Definition of welltyped terms (immediately following). Since wellformed typing contexts ∆ contain no variance information, hence ◦ ∆ = ∆, we might drop the “◦ ” in the instantiation rule (fifth rule). The new set of rules is consequently, (x:A) ∈ ∆ ∆ cxt ∆ ⊢ x: A ∆, X ◦κ ⊢ t: A ∆ ⊢ t: ∀X κ. A ∆, x:A ⊢ t: B ∆ ⊢ λx.t: A → B ∆ ⊢ t: ∀X κ. A ∆ ⊢ F: κ
On the relation between Churchstyle typing and Currystyle typing ∗
, 2008
"... There are two versions of type assignment in λcalculus: Churchstyle, in which the type of each variable is fixed, and Currystyle (also called “domain free”), in which it is not. As an example, in Churchstyle typing, λx: A. x is the identity function on type A, and it has type A → A but not B → B f ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
There are two versions of type assignment in λcalculus: Churchstyle, in which the type of each variable is fixed, and Currystyle (also called “domain free”), in which it is not. As an example, in Churchstyle typing, λx: A. x is the identity function on type A, and it has type A → A but not B → B for a type B different from A. In Currystyle typing, λx. x is a general identity function with type C → C for every type C. In this paper, I will show how to interpret in a Currystyle system every Pure Type System (PTS) in the Churchstyle without losing any typing information. I will also prove a kind of comservative extension result for this interpretation, a result which implies that for most consistent PTSs of the Churchstyle, the corresponding Currystyle system is consistent. (This generalizes some unpublished work with