This work develops a suitable data type for plane graph embeddings in Agda. Graphs are used as combinatorial representations for string diagrams, a graphical calculus for monoidal categories. Whenever a monoidal theory does not include any symmetry or braiding operations, it describes processes that are sensitive to their topology. To encode this information in the graphical language, we have to consider surface-embeddings of graphs. We study the simplest case, plane graphs, and present their implementation in Agda. We overcome issues like the cyclic nature of a graph by using one of its spanning trees as an underlying inductive structure. The graphs we implement are plane by construction and any operation on them is guaranteed to preserve this planarity. Additionally, we present a notion of focussing on a certain subgraph within a graph. This operation is crucial for the application of local rewrite rules which themselves are at the centre of diagrammatic reasoning in monoidal categories.

Many programs process lists by recursing in a wide variety of sequential and/or divide-and-conquer patterns. Reasoning about the correctness and completeness of these programs requires reasoning about the lengths of the lists, techniques for which are typically undecidable or at least NP-complete. In this paper we show how introducing a relatively simple (sub-)language for expressions describing list lengths, whilst not completely general, covers a great number of these patterns. It includes not only doubling but also exponentiation (iterated doubling), and moreover admits a simple length-checking algorithm that is complete over a predictable problem domain. We prove termination of the algorithm via category-theoretic pullbacks, formalized in Agda, as well as providing a more realistic implementation in Rocq, and a toy language Fulbourn with interpreter in Haskell.

Modern programming language type systems help programmers write correct software, and furthermore helps them write the software they actually intended to write. We show how expressive types can be used to encode dimension and units of measure information, which can be used to avoid dimensional mistakes and guide software construction, and how types can even help to generate code automatically, which eliminates a whole class of bugs.

The syntax of almost every programming language includes a notion of binder and corresponding bound occurrences, along with the accompanying notions of α-equivalence, capture-avoiding substitution, typing contexts, runtime environments, and so on. In the past, implementing and reasoning about programming languages required careful handling to maintain the correct behaviour of bound variables. Modern programming languages include features that enable constraints like scope safety to be expressed in types. Nevertheless, the programmer is still forced to write the same boilerplate over again for each new implementation of a scope-safe operation (e.g., renaming, substitution, desugaring, printing), and then again for correctness proofs. We present an expressive universe of syntaxes with binding and demonstrate how to (1) implement scope-safe traversals once and for all by generic programming; and (2) how to derive properties of these traversals by generic proving. Our universe description, generic traversals and proofs, and our examples have all been formalised in Agda and are available in the accompanying material available online at https://github.com/gallais/generic-syntax .

We explore the design and implementation of Frank, a strict functional programming language with a bidirectional effect type system designed from the ground up around a novel variant of Plotkin and Pretnar’s effect handler abstraction. Effect handlers provide an abstraction for modular effectful programming: a handler acts as an interpreter for a collection of commands whose interfaces are statically tracked by the type system. However, Frank eliminates the need for an additional effect handling construct by generalising the basic mechanism of functional abstraction itself. A function is but the special case of a Frank operator that interprets no commands. Moreover, Frank’s operators can be multihandlers which simultaneously interpret commands from several sources at once, without disturbing the direct style of functional programming with values. Effect typing in Frank employs a novel form of effect polymorphism which avoids mentioning effect variables in source code. This is achieved by propagating an ambient ability inwards, rather than accumulating unions of potential effects outwards. With the ambient ability describing the effects that are available at a certain point in the code, it can become necessary to reconfigure access to the ambient ability. A primary goal is to be able to encapsulate internal effects, eliminating a phenomenon we call effect pollution . Moreover, it is sometimes desirable to rewire the effect flow between effectful library components. We propose adaptors as a means for supporting both effect encapsulation and more general rewiring. Programming with effects and handlers is in its infancy. We contribute an exploration of future possibilities, particularly in combination with other forms of rich type systems.

The key to any nameless representation of syntax is how it indicates the variables we choose to use and thus, implicitly, those we discard. Standard de Bruijn representations delay discarding maximally till the leaves of terms where one is chosen from the variables in scope at the expense of the rest. Consequently, introducing new but unused variables requires term traversal. This paper introduces a nameless ‘co-de-Bruijn’ representation which makes the opposite canonical choice, delaying discarding minimally, as near as possible to the root. It is literate Agda: dependent types make it a practical joy to express and be driven by strong intrinsic invariants which ensure that scope is aggressively whittled down to just the support of each subterm, in which every remaining variable occurs somewhere. The construction is generic, delivering a universe of syntaxes with higher-order metavariables, for which the appropriate notion of substitution is hereditary. The implementation of simultaneous substitution exploits tight scope control to avoid busywork and shift terms without traversal. Surprisingly, it is also intrinsically terminating, by structural recursion alone.

We show that the syntactically rich notion of strictly positive families can be reduced to a core type theory with a fixed number of type constructors exploiting the novel notion of indexed containers. As a result, we show indexed containers provide normal forms for strictly positive families in much the same way that containers provide normal forms for strictly positive types. Interestingly, this step from containers to indexed containers is achieved without having to extend the core type theory. Most of the construction presented here has been formalized using the Agda system.

In this article, we introduce Applicative functors – an abstract characterisation of an applicative style of effectful programming, weaker than Monads and hence more widespread. Indeed, it is the ubiquity of this programming pattern that drew us to the abstraction. We retrace our steps in this article, introducing the applicative pattern by diverse examples, then abstracting it to define the Applicative type class and introducing a bracket notation that interprets the normal application syntax in the idiom of an Applicative functor. Furthermore, we develop the properties of applicative functors and the generic operations they support. We close by identifying the categorical structure of applicative functors and examining their relationship both with Monads and with Arrow.

Pattern matching has proved an extremely powerful and durable notion in functional programming. This paper contributes a new programming notation for type theory which elaborates the notion in various ways. First, as is by now quite well-known in the type theory community, definition by pattern matching becomes a more discriminating tool in the presence of dependent types, since it refines the explanation of types as well as values. This becomes all the more true in the presence of the rich class of datatypes known as inductive families (Dybjer, 1991). Secondly, as proposed by Peyton Jones (1997) for Haskell, and independently rediscovered by us, subsidiary case analyses on the results of intermediate computations, which commonly take place on the right-hand side of definitions by pattern matching, should rather be handled on the left. In simply-typed languages, this subsumes the trivial case of Boolean guards; in our setting it becomes yet more powerful. Thirdly, elementary pattern matching decompositions have a well-defined interface given by a dependent type; they correspond to the statement of an induction principle for the datatype. More general, user-definable decompositions may be defined which also have types of the same general form. Elementary pattern matching may therefore be recast in abstract form, with a semantics given by translation. Such abstract decompositions of data generalize Wadler’s (1987) notion of ‘view’. The programmer wishing to introduce a new view of a type $\text{𝑇}$ , and exploit it directly in pattern matching, may do so via a standard programming idiom. The type theorist, looking through the Curry–Howard lens, may see this as proving a theorem , one which establishes the validity of a new induction principle for $\text{𝑇}$ . We develop enough syntax and semantics to account for this high-level style of programming in dependent type theory. We close with the development of a typechecker for the simply-typed lambda calculus, which furnishes a view of raw terms as either being well-typed, or containing an error. The implementation of this view is ipso facto a proof that typechecking is decidable.

First-order unification algorithms (Robinson, 1965) are traditionally implemented via general recursion, with separate proofs for partial correctness and termination. The latter tends to involve counting the number of unsolved variables and showing that this total decreases each time a substitution enlarges the terms. There are many such proofs in the literature (Manna & Waldinger, 1981; Paulson, 1985; Coen, 1992; Rouyer, 1992; Jaume, 1997; Bove, 1999). This paper shows how a dependent type can relate terms to the set of variables over which they are constructed. As a consequence, first-order unification becomes a structurally recursive program, and a termination proof is no longer required. Both the program and its correctness proof have been checked using the proof assistant LEGO (Luo & Pollack, 1992; McBride, 1999).