brendanzab

/-
  A proof of the correctness of an arithmetic expression compiler in Lean 4.

  Ported from [expcompile.v], which is part of Derek Dreyer and Gert Smolka's
  [course material].

  [expcompile.v]: https://www.ps.uni-saarland.de/courses/sem-ws17/expcompile.v
  [course material]: https://courses.ps.uni-saarland.de/sem_ws1718/3/Resources
-/

domenkozar

module Spec where

import Quickstrom
import Data.Foldable (any)
import Data.Maybe (maybe)
import Data.Tuple (Tuple(..))
import Data.String.CodeUnits (contains)
import Data.String.Pattern (Pattern(..))

readyWhen = "body"

domenkozar

{-# OPTIONS_GHC -fno-warn-orphans #-}

module Repl where

import Cachix.Config (readConfig)
import Cachix.Env (setupApp)
import Cachix.Server.Prelude
import qualified Control.Exception.Safe as Safe
import qualified Language.Haskell.Interpreter as Interpreter
import Protolude

AndrasKovacs

{-# language Strict, LambdaCase, BlockArguments #-}
{-# options_ghc -Wincomplete-patterns #-}

{-
Minimal demo of "glued" evaluation in the style of Olle Fredriksson:

  https://github.com/ollef/sixty

The main idea is that during elaboration, we need different evaluation

lexi-lambda

Monads and delimited control are very closely related, so it isn’t too hard to understand them in terms of one another. From a monadic point of view, the big idea is that if you have the computation m >>= f, then f is m’s continuation. It’s the function that is called with m’s result to continue execution after m returns.

If you have a long chain of binds, the continuation is just the composition of all of them. So, for example, if you have

m >>= f >>= g >>= h

then the continuation of m is f >=> g >=> h. Likewise, the continuation of m >>= f is g >=> h.

gelisam

-- in response to https://twitter.com/chrislpenner/status/1221784005156036608
--
-- The goal is to mimic this Scala code, but in Haskell:
--
-- > "spotify:user:123:playlist:456" match {
-- >   case s"spotify:user:$userId:playlist:$playlistId"
-- >     => ($userId, $playlistId)  // ("123", "456")
-- > }
{-# LANGUAGE DeriveFunctor, LambdaCase, PatternSynonyms, QuasiQuotes, RankNTypes, TemplateHaskell, TypeOperators, ViewPatterns #-}
{-# OPTIONS -Wno-name-shadowing #-}

pchiusano

-- This gist shows how we can use abilities to provide nicer syntax for any monad.
-- We can view abilities as "just" providing nicer syntax for working with the
-- free monad.

ability Monadic f where
  eval : f a -> a

-- Here's a monad, encoded as a first-class value with
-- two polymorphic functions, `pure` and `bind`
type Monad f = Monad (forall a . a -> f a) (forall a b . f a -> (a -> f b) -> f b)

luc-tielen

{-# LANGUAGE TemplateHaskell #-}
{-# LANGUAGE GADTs #-}
{-# LANGUAGE TypeFamilies #-}
{-# LANGUAGE MultiParamTypeClasses #-}

module Bad where

import Prelude
import Data.Kind ( Type )
import Generics.MultiRec.TH

jaspervdj

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Is List or NonEmpty "simpler"?  Neither:

type NonEmpty a = Fix (Compose ((,) a) Maybe)
type List     a = Fix (Compose Maybe ((,) a))

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

newtype Fix f = Fix {unFix :: f (Fix f)}

rntz

-- A simply-typed lambda calculus, and a definition of normalisation by
-- evaluation for it.
--
-- The NBE implementation is based on a presentation by Sam Lindley from 2016:
-- http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/slindley/nbe/nbe-cambridge2016.pdf
--
-- Adapted to handle terms with explicitly typed contexts (Sam's slides only
-- consider open terms with the environments left implicit/untyped). This was a
-- pain in the ass to figure out.