theory FirstSteps

imports Base

begin

chapter {* First Steps *}

text {*

  Isabelle programming is done in ML.  Just like lemmas and proofs, ML-code

  this chapter, we assume you are working inside the theory starting with

  \begin{center}

  \begin{tabular}{@ {}l}

  \isacommand{theory} FirstSteps\\

  \isacommand{imports} Main\\

  \isacommand{begin}\\

  \ldots

  \end{tabular}

  \end{center}

*}

section {* Including ML-Code *}

text {*

  The easiest and quickest way to include code in a theory is

\begin{isabelle}

\begin{graybox}

\isacommand{ML}~@{text "\<verbopen>"}\isanewline

\hspace{5mm}@{ML "3 + 4"}\isanewline

@{text "\<verbclose>"}\isanewline

@{text "> 7"}\smallskip

\end{graybox}

\end{isabelle}

  \isacommand{ML}-commands can be evaluated by using the advance and undo buttons of 

  your Isabelle environment. The code inside the \isacommand{ML}-command 

  can also contain value and function bindings, and even those can be

  undone when the proof script is retracted. As mentioned earlier, we will  

  drop the \isacommand{ML}~@{text "\<verbopen> \<dots> \<verbclose>"} 

  Once a portion of code is relatively stable, one usually wants to 

  export it to a separate ML-file. Such files can then be included in a 

  \begin{center}

  \begin{tabular}{@ {}l}

  \isacommand{theory} FirstSteps\\

  \isacommand{imports} Main\\

  \isacommand{uses} @{text "\"file_to_be_included.ML\""} @{text "\<dots>"}\\

  \isacommand{begin}\\

  \ldots

  \end{tabular}

  \end{center}

*}

section {* Debugging and Printing *}

text {*

  During development you might find it necessary to inspect some data

  in your code. This can be done in a ``quick-and-dirty'' fashion using 

  the function @{ML "warning"}. For example 

  @{ML_response_fake [display,gray] "warning \"any string\"" "\"any string\""}

  will print out @{text [quotes] "any string"} inside the response buffer

  of Isabelle.  This function expects a string as argument. If you develop under PolyML,

  then there is a convenient, though again ``quick-and-dirty'', method for

  converting values into strings, namely using the function @{ML makestring}:

  @{ML_response_fake [display,gray] "warning (makestring 1)" "\"1\""} 

  However @{ML makestring} only works if the type of what is converted is monomorphic 

  and not a function.

  The function @{ML "warning"} should only be used for testing purposes, because any

  output this function generates will be overwritten as soon as an error is

  raised. For printing anything more serious and elaborate, the

  function @{ML tracing} is more appropriate. This function writes all output into

  @{ML_response_fake [display,gray] "tracing \"foo\"" "\"foo\""}

  It is also possible to redirect the ``channel'' where the string @{text "foo"} is 

  printed to a separate file, e.g.~to prevent ProofGeneral from choking on massive 

  amounts of trace output. This redirection can be achieved using the code

*}

ML{*val strip_specials =

let

  fun strip ("\^A" :: _ :: cs) = strip cs

    | strip (c :: cs) = c :: strip cs

    | strip [] = [];

in implode o strip o explode end;

fun redirect_tracing stream =

 Output.tracing_fn := (fn s =>

    (TextIO.output (stream, (strip_specials s));

     TextIO.output (stream, "\n");

     TextIO.flushOut stream)) *}

text {*

  Calling @{ML "redirect_tracing"} with @{ML "(TextIO.openOut \"foo.bar\")"} 

  will cause that all tracing information is printed into the file @{text "foo.bar"}.

  @{ML_response_fake [display,gray] "if 0=1 then 1 else (error \"foo\")" "\"foo\""}

*}

section {* Antiquotations *}

text {*

  The main advantage of embedding all code in a theory is that the code can

  contain references to entities defined on the logical level of Isabelle. By

  this we mean definitions, theorems, terms and so on. This kind of reference is

  realised with antiquotations.  For example, one can print out the name of the current

  theory by typing

  @{ML_response [display,gray] "Context.theory_name @{theory}" "\"FirstSteps\""}

  where @{text "@{theory}"} is an antiquotation that is substituted with the

  current theory (remember that we assumed we are inside the theory 

  the function @{ML "Context.theory_name"}. 

  determined at ``compile-time'', not ``run-time''. For example the function

*}

ML{*fun not_current_thyname () = Context.theory_name @{theory} *}

text {*

  different theory. Instead, the code above defines the constant function 

  that always returns the string @{text [quotes] "FirstSteps"}, no matter where the

  function is called. Operationally speaking,  the antiquotation @{text "@{theory}"} is 

  \emph{not} replaced with code that will look up the current theory in 

  some data structure and return it. Instead, it is literally

  replaced with the value representing the theory name.

  In a similar way you can use antiquotations to refer to proved theorems:

  @{ML_response_fake [display,gray] "@{thm allI}" "(\<And>x. ?P x) \<Longrightarrow> \<forall>x. ?P x"}

  or simpsets:

  @{ML_response_fake [display,gray] 

"let

in

  map #name (Net.entries rules)

end" "[\"Nat.of_nat_eq_id\", \"Int.of_int_eq_id\", \"Nat.One_nat_def\", \<dots>]"}

  current simpset.  We get hold of the current simpset with the antiquotation 

  @{text "@{simpset}"}.  The function @{ML rep_ss in MetaSimplifier} returns a record

  containing all information about the simpset. The rules of a simpset are

  stored in a \emph{discrimination net} (a datastructure for fast

  indexing). From this net we can extract the entries using the function @{ML

  Net.entries}.

  \begin{readmore}

  The infrastructure for simpsets is implemented in @{ML_file "Pure/meta_simplifier.ML"}

  and @{ML_file "Pure/simplifier.ML"}. Discrimination nets are implemented

  in @{ML_file "Pure/net.ML"}.

  \end{readmore}

  While antiquotations have many applications, they were originally introduced in order 

*}

ML{*val allI = thm "allI" *}

text {*

  These bindings are difficult to maintain and also can be accidentally

  packages. Antiquotations solve this problem, since they are ``linked''

*}

section {* Terms and Types *}

text {*

  One way to construct terms of Isabelle on the ML-level is by using the antiquotation 

  @{ML_response [display,gray] 

"@{term \"(a::nat) + b = c\"}" 

"Const (\"op =\", \<dots>) $ 

                 (Const (\"HOL.plus_class.plus\", \<dots>) $ \<dots> $ \<dots>) $ \<dots>"}

  This will show the term @{term "(a::nat) + b = c"}, but printed using the internal

  representation of this term. This internal representation corresponds to the 

  datatype @{ML_type "term"}.

  The internal representation of terms uses the usual de Bruijn index mechanism where bound 

  variables are represented by the constructor @{ML Bound}. The index in @{ML Bound} refers to

  the number of Abstractions (@{ML Abs}) we have to skip until we hit the @{ML Abs} that

  binds the corresponding variable. However, in Isabelle the names of bound variables are 

  kept at abstractions for printing purposes, and so should be treated only as comments. 

  \begin{readmore}

  Terms are described in detail in \isccite{sec:terms}. Their

  definition and many useful operations are implemented in @{ML_file "Pure/term.ML"}.

  \end{readmore}

  Sometimes the internal representation of terms can be surprisingly different

  from what you see at the user level, because the layers of

  parsing/type-checking/pretty printing can be quite elaborate. 

  \begin{exercise}

  Look at the internal term representation of the following terms, and

  \begin{itemize}

  \item @{term "case x of 0 \<Rightarrow> 0 | Suc y \<Rightarrow> y"}  

  \item @{term "\<lambda>(x,y). P y x"}  

  \item @{term "{ [x::int] | x. x \<le> -2 }"}  

  \end{itemize}

  Hint: The third term is already quite big, and the pretty printer

  may omit parts of it by default. If you want to see all of it, you

  can use the following ML function to set the limit to a value high 

  enough:

  @{ML [display,gray] "print_depth 50"}

  \end{exercise}

  The antiquotation @{text "@{prop \<dots>}"} constructs terms of propositional type, 

  inserting the invisible @{text "Trueprop"}-coercions whenever necessary. 

  Consider for example the pairs

  @{ML_response [display,gray] "(@{term \"P x\"}, @{prop \"P x\"})" "(Free (\"P\", \<dots>) $ Free (\"x\", \<dots>),

 Const (\"Trueprop\", \<dots>) $ (Free (\"P\", \<dots>) $ Free (\"x\", \<dots>)))"}

  where an coercion is inserted in the second component and 

  @{ML_response [display,gray] "(@{term \"P x \<Longrightarrow> Q x\"}, @{prop \"P x \<Longrightarrow> Q x\"})" 

  "(Const (\"==>\", \<dots>) $ \<dots> $ \<dots>, Const (\"==>\", \<dots>) $ \<dots> $ \<dots>)"}

  where it is not (since it is already constructed by a meta-implication). 

  @{ML_response_fake [display,gray] "@{typ \"bool \<Rightarrow> nat\"}" "bool \<Rightarrow> nat"}

  \begin{readmore}

  Types are described in detail in \isccite{sec:types}. Their

  definition and many useful operations are implemented 

  in @{ML_file "Pure/type.ML"}.

  \end{readmore}

*}

section {* Constructing Terms and Types Manually *} 

text {*

  While antiquotations are very convenient for constructing terms, they can

  only construct fixed terms (remember they are ``linked'' at

  compile-time). See Recipe~\ref{rec:external} on Page~\pageref{rec:external}

  terms dynamically. For example, a function that returns the implication

  @{text "\<And>(x::\<tau>). P x \<Longrightarrow> Q x"} taking @{term P}, @{term Q} and the type @{term

*}

ML{*fun make_imp P Q tau =

  let

    val x = Free ("x",tau)

  in 

    Logic.all x (Logic.mk_implies (P $ x, Q $ x))

  end *}

text {*

  The reason is that one cannot pass the arguments @{term P}, @{term Q} and 

  @{term "tau"} into an antiquotation. For example the following does \emph{not} work:

*}

ML{*fun make_wrong_imp P Q tau = @{prop "\<And>x. P x \<Longrightarrow> Q x"} *}

text {*

  To see this apply @{text "@{term S}"}, @{text "@{term T}"} and @{text "@{typ nat}"} 

  to both functions. With @{ML make_imp} we obtain the intended term involving 

  @{term "S"}, @{text "T"} and  @{text "@{typ nat}"} 

  @{ML_response [display,gray] "make_imp @{term S} @{term T} @{typ nat}" 

    "Const \<dots> $ 

    Abs (\"x\", Type (\"nat\",[]),

      Const \<dots> $ (Free (\"S\",\<dots>) $ \<dots>) $ 

                  (Free (\"T\",\<dots>) $ \<dots>))"}

  whereas with @{ML make_wrong_imp} we obtain a term involving the @{term "P"} 

  and @{text "Q"} from the antiquotation.

  @{ML_response [display,gray] "make_wrong_imp @{term S} @{term T} @{typ nat}" 

    "Const \<dots> $ 

    Abs (\"x\", \<dots>,

      Const \<dots> $ (Const \<dots> $ (Free (\"P\",\<dots>) $ \<dots>)) $ 

                  (Const \<dots> $ (Free (\"Q\",\<dots>) $ \<dots>)))"}

  (FIXME: expand the following point)

  One tricky point in constructing terms by hand is to obtain the fully

  qualified name for constants. For example the names for @{text "zero"} and

  @{text "+"} are more complex than one first expects, namely

  \begin{center}

  @{text "HOL.zero_class.zero"} and @{text "HOL.plus_class.plus"}. 

  \end{center}

  The extra prefixes @{text zero_class} and @{text plus_class} are present

  because these constants are defined within type classes; the prefix @{text

  "HOL"} indicates in which theory they are defined. Guessing such internal

  names can sometimes be quite hard. Therefore Isabelle provides the

  antiquotation @{text "@{const_name \<dots>}"} which does the expansion

  automatically, for example:

  @{ML_response_fake [display,gray] "@{const_name \"Nil\"}" "List.list.Nil"}

  (FIXME: Is it useful to explain @{text "@{const_syntax}"}?)

  Similarly, one can construct types manually. For example the function returning

  a function type is as follows:

*} 

ML{*fun make_fun_type tau1 tau2 = Type ("fun",[tau1,tau2]) *}

text {* This can be equally written as *}

ML{*fun make_fun_type tau1 tau2 = tau1 --> tau2 *}

text {*

  \begin{readmore}

  @{ML_file "HOL/hologic.ML"} that make such manual constructions of terms 

  and types easier.\end{readmore}

  Have a look at these files and try to solve the following two exercises:

*}

text {*

  \begin{exercise}\label{fun:revsum}

  Write a function @{text "rev_sum : term -> term"} that takes a

  term of the form @{text "t\<^isub>1 + t\<^isub>2 + \<dots> + t\<^isub>n"} (whereby @{text "i"} might be zero)

  and returns the reversed sum @{text "t\<^isub>n + \<dots> + t\<^isub>2 + t\<^isub>1"}. Assume

  the @{text "t\<^isub>i"} can be arbitrary expressions and also note that @{text "+"} 

  associates to the left. Try your function on some examples. 

  \end{exercise}

  \begin{exercise}\label{fun:makesum}

  Write a function which takes two terms representing natural numbers

  in unary notation (like @{term "Suc (Suc (Suc 0))"}), and produce the

  number representing their sum.

  \end{exercise}

*}

section {* Type-Checking *}

text {* 

  We can freely construct and manipulate terms, since they are just

  arbitrary unchecked trees. However, we eventually want to see if a

  term is well-formed, or type-checks, relative to a theory.

  Type-checking is done via the function @{ML cterm_of}, which converts 

  a @{ML_type term} into a  @{ML_type cterm}, a \emph{certified} term. 

  Unlike @{ML_type term}s, which are just trees, @{ML_type

  "cterm"}s are abstract objects that are guaranteed to be

  type-correct, and they can only be constructed via ``official

  interfaces''.

  Type-checking is always relative to a theory context. For now we use

  the @{ML "@{theory}"} antiquotation to get hold of the current theory.

  For example we can write

  @{ML_response_fake [display,gray] "cterm_of @{theory} @{term \"a + b = c\"}" "a + b = c"}

  This can also be wirtten with an antiquotation

  @{ML_response_fake [display,gray] "@{cterm \"(a::nat) + b = c\"}" "a + b = c"}

  Attempting to obtain the certified term for

  @{ML_response_fake_both [display,gray] "@{cterm \"1 + True\"}" "Type unification failed \<dots>"}

  yields an error (since the term is not typable). A slightly more elaborate

  example that type-checks is

@{ML_response_fake [display,gray] 

"let

  val natT = @{typ \"nat\"}

  val zero = @{term \"0::nat\"}

in

  cterm_of @{theory} 

      (Const (@{const_name plus}, natT --> natT --> natT) $ zero $ zero)

end" "0 + 0"}

  \begin{exercise}

  Check that the function defined in Exercise~\ref{fun:revsum} returns a

  result that type-checks.

  \end{exercise}

*}

section {* Theorems *}

text {*

  Just like @{ML_type cterm}s, theorems are abstract objects of type @{ML_type thm} 

  that can only be built by going through interfaces. As a consequence, every proof 

  in Isabelle is correct by construction (FIXME reference LCF-philosophy)

  To see theorems in ``action'', let us give a proof on the ML-level for the following 

  statement:

*}

  lemma 

   assumes assm\<^isub>1: "\<And>(x::nat). P x \<Longrightarrow> Q x" 

   and     assm\<^isub>2: "P t"

   shows "Q t" (*<*)oops(*>*) 

text {*

  The corresponding ML-code is as follows:\footnote{Note that @{text "|>"} is reverse

  application. See Section~\ref{sec:combinators}.}

@{ML_response_fake [display,gray]

"let

  val thy = @{theory}

  val assm1 = cterm_of thy @{prop \"\<And>(x::nat). P x \<Longrightarrow> Q x\"}

  val assm2 = cterm_of thy @{prop \"(P::nat\<Rightarrow>bool) t\"}