Lecture #5, Tuesday, February 1st
=================================
 Bindings & Substitution
 WAE: Adding Bindings to AE
 Evaluation of `with`

# Bindings & Substitution
We now get to an important concept: substitution.
Even in our simple language, we encounter repeated expressions. For
example, if we want to compute the square of some expression:
{* {+ 4 2} {+ 4 2}}
Why would we want to get rid of the repeated subexpression?
* It introduces a redundant computation. In this example, we want to
avoid computing the same subexpression a second time.
* It makes the computation more complicated than it could be without the
repetition. Compare the above with:
with x = {+ 4 2},
{* x x}
* This is related to a basic fact in programming that we have already
discussed: duplicating information is always a bad thing. Among other
bad consequences, it can even lead to bugs that could not happen if we
wouldn't duplicate code. A toy example is "fixing" one of the numbers
in one expression and forgetting to fix the corresponding one:
{* {+ 4 2} {+ 4 1}}
Real world examples involve much more code, which make such bugs very
difficult to find, but they still follow the same principle.
* This gives us more expressive power  we don't just say that we want
to multiply two expressions that both happen to be `{+ 4 2}`, we say
that we multiply the `{+ 4 2}` expression by *itself*. It allows us
to express identity of two values as well as using two values that
happen to be the same.
So, the normal way to avoid redundancy is to introduce an identifier.
Even when we speak, we might say: "let x be 4 plus 2, multiply x by x".
(These are often called "variables", but we will try to avoid this name:
what if the identifier does not change (vary)?)
To get this, we introduce a new form into our language:
{with {x {+ 4 2}}
{* x x}}
We expect to be able to reduce this to:
{* 6 6}
by substituting 6 for `x` in the body subexpression of `with`.
A little more complicated example:
{with {x {+ 4 2}}
{with {y {* x x}}
{+ y y}}}
[add] = {with {x 6} {with {y {* x x}} {+ y y}}}
[subst]= {with {y {* 6 6}} {+ y y}}
[mul] = {with {y 36} {+ y y}}
[subst]= {+ 36 36}
[add] = 72

# WAE: Adding Bindings to AE
> [PLAI ยง3]
To add this to our language, we start with the BNF. We now call our
language "WAE" (With+AE):
::=
 { + }
 {  }
 { * }
 { / }
 { with { } }

Note that we had to introduce *two* new rules: one for introducing an
identifier, and one for using it. This is common in many language
specifications, for example `definetype` introduces a new type, and it
comes with `cases` that allows us to destruct its instances.
For `` we need to use some form of identifiers, the natural choice
in Racket is to use symbols. We can therefore write the corresponding
type definition:
(definetype WAE
[Num Number]
[Add WAE WAE]
[Sub WAE WAE]
[Mul WAE WAE]
[Div WAE WAE]
[Id Symbol]
[With Symbol WAE WAE])
The parser is easily extended to produce these syntax objects:
(: parsesexpr : Sexpr > WAE)
;; parses sexpressions into WAEs
(define (parsesexpr sexpr)
(match sexpr
[(number: n) (Num n)]
[(symbol: name) (Id name)]
[(list 'with (list (symbol: name) named) body)
(With name (parsesexpr named) (parsesexpr body))]
[(list '+ lhs rhs) (Add (parsesexpr lhs) (parsesexpr rhs))]
[(list ' lhs rhs) (Sub (parsesexpr lhs) (parsesexpr rhs))]
[(list '* lhs rhs) (Mul (parsesexpr lhs) (parsesexpr rhs))]
[(list '/ lhs rhs) (Div (parsesexpr lhs) (parsesexpr rhs))]
[else (error 'parsesexpr "bad syntax in ~s" sexpr)]))
But note that this parser is inconvenient  if any of these
expressions:
{* 1 2 3}
{foo 5 6}
{with x 5 {* x 8}}
{with {5 x} {* x 8}}
would result in a "bad syntax" error, which is not very helpful. To
make things better, we can add another case for `with` expressions that
are malformed, and give a more specific message in that case:
(: parsesexpr : Sexpr > WAE)
;; parses sexpressions into WAEs
(define (parsesexpr sexpr)
(match sexpr
[(number: n) (Num n)]
[(symbol: name) (Id name)]
[(list 'with (list (symbol: name) named) body)
(With name (parsesexpr named) (parsesexpr body))]
[(cons 'with more)
(error 'parsesexpr "bad `with' syntax in ~s" sexpr)]
[(list '+ lhs rhs) (Add (parsesexpr lhs) (parsesexpr rhs))]
[(list ' lhs rhs) (Sub (parsesexpr lhs) (parsesexpr rhs))]
[(list '* lhs rhs) (Mul (parsesexpr lhs) (parsesexpr rhs))]
[(list '/ lhs rhs) (Div (parsesexpr lhs) (parsesexpr rhs))]
[else (error 'parsesexpr "bad syntax in ~s" sexpr)]))
and finally, to group all of the parsing code that deals with `with`
expressions (both valid and invalid ones), we can use a single case for
both of them:
(: parsesexpr : Sexpr > WAE)
;; parses sexpressions into WAEs
(define (parsesexpr sexpr)
(match sexpr
[(number: n) (Num n)]
[(symbol: name) (Id name)]
[(cons 'with more)
;; go in here for all sexpr that begin with a 'with
(match sexpr
[(list 'with (list (symbol: name) named) body)
(With name (parsesexpr named) (parsesexpr body))]
[else (error 'parsesexpr "bad `with' syntax in ~s" sexpr)])]
[(list '+ lhs rhs) (Add (parsesexpr lhs) (parsesexpr rhs))]
[(list ' lhs rhs) (Sub (parsesexpr lhs) (parsesexpr rhs))]
[(list '* lhs rhs) (Mul (parsesexpr lhs) (parsesexpr rhs))]
[(list '/ lhs rhs) (Div (parsesexpr lhs) (parsesexpr rhs))]
[else (error 'parsesexpr "bad syntax in ~s" sexpr)]))
And now we're done with the syntactic part of the `with` extension.
> Quick note  why would we indent `With` like a normal function in
> code like this
>
> (With 'x
> (Num 2)
> (Add (Id 'x) (Num 4)))
>
> instead of an indentation that looks like a `let`
>
> (With 'x (Num 2)
> (Add (Id 'x) (Num 4)))
>
> ?
>
> The reason for this is that the second indentation looks like a
> binding construct (eg, the indentation used in a `let` expression),
> but `With` is *not* a binding form  it's a *plain function* because
> it's at the Racket level. You should therefore keep in mind the huge
> difference between that `With` and the `with` that appears in WAE
> programs:
>
> {with {x 2}
> {+ x 4}}
>
> Another way to look at it: imagine that we intend for the language to
> be used by Spanish/Chinese/German/French speakers. In this case we
> would translate "`with`":
>
> {con {x 2} {+ x 4}}
> {he {x 2} {+ x 4}}
> {mit {x 2} {+ x 4}}
> {avec {x 2} {+ x 4}}
> {c {x 2} {+ x 4}}
>
> but we will *not* do the same for `With` if we (the language
> implementors) are English speakers.

# Evaluation of `with`
Now, to make this work, we will need to do some substitutions.
We basically want to say that to evaluate:
{with {id WAE1} WAE2}
we need to evaluate `WAE2` with id substituted by `WAE1`. Formally:
eval( {with {id WAE1} WAE2} )
= eval( subst(WAE2,id,WAE1) )
There is a more common syntax for substitution (quick: what do I mean by
this use of "syntax"?):
eval( {with {id WAE1} WAE2} )
= eval( WAE2[WAE1/id] )
> Sidenote: this syntax originates with logicians who used `[x/v]e`,
> and later there was a convention that mimicked the more natural order
> of arguments to a function with `e[x>v]`, and eventually both of
> these got combined into `e[v/x]` which is a little confusing in that
> the lefttoright order of the arguments is not the same as for the
> `subst` function.
Now all we need is an exact definition of substitution.
> Note that substitution is not the same as evaluation, it's only a part
> of the evaluation process. In the previous examples, when we
> evaluated the expression we did substitutions as well as the usual
> arithmetic operations that were already part of the AE evaluator. In
> this last definition there is still a missing evaluation step, see if
> you can find it.
So let us try to define substitution now:
> Substitution (take 1): `e[v/i]` \
> To substitute an identifier `i` in an expression `e` with an
> expression `v`, replace all identifiers in `e` that have the same
> name `i` by the expression `v`.
This seems to work with simple expressions, for example:
{with {x 5} {+ x x}} > {+ 5 5}
{with {x 5} {+ 10 4}} > {+ 10 4}
however, we crash with an invalid syntax if we try:
{with {x 5} {+ x {with {x 3} 10}}}
> {+ 5 {with {5 3} 10}} ???
 we got to an invalid expression.
To fix this, we need to distinguish normal occurrences of identifiers,
and ones that are used as new bindings. We need a few new terms for
this:
1. Binding Instance: a binding instance of an identifier is one that is
used to name it in a new binding. In our `` syntax, binding
instances are only the `` position of the `with` form.
2. Scope: the scope of a binding instance is the region of program text
in which instances of the identifier refer to the value bound in the
binding instance. (Note that this definition actually relies on a
definition of substitution, because that is what is used to specify
how identifiers refer to values.)
3. Bound Instance (or Bound Occurrence): an instance of an identifier is
bound if it is contained within the scope of a binding instance of
its name.
4. Free Instance (or Free Occurrence): An identifier that is not
contained in any binding instance of its name is said to be free.
Using this we can say that the problem with the previous definition of
substitution is that it failed to distinguish between bound instances
(which should be substituted) and binding instances (which should not).
So we try to fix this:
> Substitution (take 2): `e[v/i]` \
> To substitute an identifier `i` in an expression `e` with an
> expression `v`, replace all instances of `i` that are not
> themselves binding instances with the expression `v`.
First of all, check the previous examples:
{with {x 5} {+ x x}} > {+ 5 5}
{with {x 5} {+ 10 4}} > {+ 10 4}
still work, and
{with {x 5} {+ x {with {x 3} 10}}}
> {+ 5 {with {x 3} 10}}
> {+ 5 10}
also works. However, if we try this:
{with {x 5}
{+ x {with {x 3}
x}}}
we get:
> {+ 5 {with {x 3} 5}}
> {+ 5 5}
> 10
but we want that to be `8`: the inner `x` should be bound by the closest
`with` that binds it.
The problem is that the new definition of substitution that we have
respects binding instances, but it fails to deal with their scope. In
the above example, we want the inner `with` to *shadow* the outer
`with`'s binding for `x`.
> Substitution (take 3): `e[v/i]` \
> To substitute an identifier `i` in an expression `e` with an
> expression `v`, replace all instances of `i` that are not themselves
> binding instances, and that are not in any nested scope, with the
> expression `v`.
This avoids bad substitution above, but it is now doing things too
carefully:
{with {x 5} {+ x {with {y 3} x}}}
becomes
> {+ 5 {with {y 3} x}}
> {+ 5 x}
which is an error because `x` is unbound (and there is reasonable no
rule that we can specify to evaluate it).
The problem is that our substitution halts at every new scope, in this
case, it stopped at the new `y` scope, but it shouldn't have because it
uses a different name. In fact, that last definition of substitution
cannot handle any nested scope.
Revise again:
> Substitution (take 4): `e[v/i]` \
> To substitute an identifier `i` in an expression `e` with an
> expression `v`, replace all instances of `i` that are not themselves
> binding instances, and that are not in any nested scope of `i`, with
> the expression `v`.
which, finally, is a good definition. This is just a little too
mechanical. Notice that we actually refer to all instances of `i` that
are not in a scope of a binding instance of `i`, which simply means all
*free occurrences* of `i`  free in `e` (why?  remember the
definition of "free"?):
> Substitution (take 4b): `e[v/i]` \
> To substitute an identifier `i` in an expression `e` with an
> expression `v`, replace all instances of `i` that are free in `e`
> with the expression `v`.
Based on this we can finally write the code for it:
(: subst : WAE Symbol WAE > WAE)
;; substitutes the second argument with the third argument in the
;; first argument, as per the rules of substitution; the resulting
;; expression contains no free instances of the second argument
(define (subst expr from to) ; returns expr[to/from]
(cases expr
[(Num n) expr]
[(Add l r) (Add (subst l from to) (subst r from to))]
[(Sub l r) (Sub (subst l from to) (subst r from to))]
[(Mul l r) (Mul (subst l from to) (subst r from to))]
[(Div l r) (Div (subst l from to) (subst r from to))]
[(Id name) (if (eq? name from) to expr)]
[(With boundid namedexpr boundbody)
(if (eq? boundid from)
expr ;*** don't go in!
(With boundid
namedexpr
(subst boundbody from to)))]))
... and this is just the same as writing a formal "paper version" of the
substitution rule.
We still have bugs: but we'll need some more work to get to them.

Before we find the bugs, we need to see when and how substitution is
used in the evaluation process.
To modify our evaluator, we will need rules to deal with the new syntax
pieces  `with` expressions and identifiers.
When we see an expression that looks like:
{with {x E1} E2}
we continue by *evaluating* `E1` to get a value `V1`, we then substitute
the identifier `x` with the expression `V1` in `E2`, and continue by
evaluating this new expression. In other words, we have the following
evaluation rule:
eval( {with {x E1} E2} )
= eval( E2[eval(E1)/x] )
So we know what to do with `with` expressions. How about identifiers?
The main feature of `subst`, as said in the purpose statement, is that
it leaves no free instances of the substituted variable around. This
means that if the initial expression is valid (did not contain any free
variables), then when we go from
{with {x E1} E2}
to
E2[E1/x]
the result is an expression that has *no* free instances of `x`. So we
don't need to handle identifiers in the evaluator  substitutions make
them all go away.
We can now extend the formal definition of AE to that of WAE:
eval(...) = ... same as the AE rules ...
eval({with {x E1} E2}) = eval(E2[eval(E1)/x])
eval(id) = error!
If you're paying close attention, you might catch a potential problem in
this definition: we're substituting `eval(E1)` for `x` in `E2`  an
operation that requires a WAE expression, but `eval(E1)` is a number.
(Look at the type of the `eval` definition we had for AE, then look at
the above definition of `subst`.) This seems like being overly
pedantic, but we it will require some resolution when we get to the
code. The above rules are easily coded as follows:
(: eval : WAE > Number)
;; evaluates WAE expressions by reducing them to numbers
(define (eval expr)
(cases expr
[(Num n) n]
[(Add l r) (+ (eval l) (eval r))]
[(Sub l r) ( (eval l) (eval r))]
[(Mul l r) (* (eval l) (eval r))]
[(Div l r) (/ (eval l) (eval r))]
[(With boundid namedexpr boundbody)
(eval (subst boundbody
boundid
(Num (eval namedexpr))))] ;***
[(Id name) (error 'eval "free identifier: ~s" name)]))
Note the `Num` expression in the marked line: evaluating the named
expression gives us back a number  we need to convert this number
into a syntax to be able to use it with `subst`. The solution is to use
`Num` to convert the resulting number into a numeral (the syntax of a
number). It's not an elegant solution, but it will do for now.
Finally, here are a few test cases. We use a new `test` special form
which is part of the course plugin. The way to use `test` is with two
expressions and an `=>` arrow  DrRacket evaluates both, and nothing
will happen if the results are equal. If the results are different, you
will get a warning line, but evaluation will continue so you can try
additional tests. You can also use an `=error>` arrow to test an error
message  use it with some text from the expected error, `?` stands
for any single character, and `*` is a sequence of zero or more
characters. (When you use `test` in your homework, the handin server
will abort when tests fail.) We expect these tests to succeed (make
sure that you understand *why* they should succeed).
;; tests
(test (run "5") => 5)
(test (run "{+ 5 5}") => 10)
(test (run "{with {x {+ 5 5}} {+ x x}}") => 20)
(test (run "{with {x 5} {+ x x}}") => 10)
(test (run "{with {x {+ 5 5}} {with {y { x 3}} {+ y y}}}") => 14)
(test (run "{with {x 5} {with {y { x 3}} {+ y y}}}") => 4)
(test (run "{with {x 5} {+ x {with {x 3} 10}}}") => 15)
(test (run "{with {x 5} {+ x {with {x 3} x}}}") => 8)
(test (run "{with {x 5} {+ x {with {y 3} x}}}") => 10)
(test (run "{with {x 5} {with {y x} y}}") => 5)
(test (run "{with {x 5} {with {x x} x}}") => 5)
(test (run "{with {x 1} y}") =error> "free identifier")
Putting this all together, we get the following code; trying to run this
code will raise an unexpected error...
#lang pl
# BNF for the WAE language:
::=
 { + }
 {  }
 { * }
 { / }
 { with { } }

#
;; WAE abstract syntax trees
(definetype WAE
[Num Number]
[Add WAE WAE]
[Sub WAE WAE]
[Mul WAE WAE]
[Div WAE WAE]
[Id Symbol]
[With Symbol WAE WAE])
(: parsesexpr : Sexpr > WAE)
;; parses sexpressions into WAEs
(define (parsesexpr sexpr)
(match sexpr
[(number: n) (Num n)]
[(symbol: name) (Id name)]
[(cons 'with more)
(match sexpr
[(list 'with (list (symbol: name) named) body)
(With name (parsesexpr named) (parsesexpr body))]
[else (error 'parsesexpr "bad `with' syntax in ~s" sexpr)])]
[(list '+ lhs rhs) (Add (parsesexpr lhs) (parsesexpr rhs))]
[(list ' lhs rhs) (Sub (parsesexpr lhs) (parsesexpr rhs))]
[(list '* lhs rhs) (Mul (parsesexpr lhs) (parsesexpr rhs))]
[(list '/ lhs rhs) (Div (parsesexpr lhs) (parsesexpr rhs))]
[else (error 'parsesexpr "bad syntax in ~s" sexpr)]))
(: parse : String > WAE)
;; parses a string containing a WAE expression to a WAE AST
(define (parse str)
(parsesexpr (string>sexpr str)))
(: subst : WAE Symbol WAE > WAE)
;; substitutes the second argument with the third argument in the
;; first argument, as per the rules of substitution; the resulting
;; expression contains no free instances of the second argument
(define (subst expr from to)
(cases expr
[(Num n) expr]
[(Add l r) (Add (subst l from to) (subst r from to))]
[(Sub l r) (Sub (subst l from to) (subst r from to))]
[(Mul l r) (Mul (subst l from to) (subst r from to))]
[(Div l r) (Div (subst l from to) (subst r from to))]
[(Id name) (if (eq? name from) to expr)]
[(With boundid namedexpr boundbody)
(if (eq? boundid from)
expr
(With boundid
namedexpr
(subst boundbody from to)))]))
(: eval : WAE > Number)
;; evaluates WAE expressions by reducing them to numbers
(define (eval expr)
(cases expr
[(Num n) n]
[(Add l r) (+ (eval l) (eval r))]
[(Sub l r) ( (eval l) (eval r))]
[(Mul l r) (* (eval l) (eval r))]
[(Div l r) (/ (eval l) (eval r))]
[(With boundid namedexpr boundbody)
(eval (subst boundbody
boundid
(Num (eval namedexpr))))]
[(Id name) (error 'eval "free identifier: ~s" name)]))
(: run : String > Number)
;; evaluate a WAE program contained in a string
(define (run str)
(eval (parse str)))
;; tests
(test (run "5") => 5)
(test (run "{+ 5 5}") => 10)
(test (run "{with {x {+ 5 5}} {+ x x}}") => 20)
(test (run "{with {x 5} {+ x x}}") => 10)
(test (run "{with {x {+ 5 5}} {with {y { x 3}} {+ y y}}}") => 14)
(test (run "{with {x 5} {with {y { x 3}} {+ y y}}}") => 4)
(test (run "{with {x 5} {+ x {with {x 3} 10}}}") => 15)
(test (run "{with {x 5} {+ x {with {x 3} x}}}") => 8)
(test (run "{with {x 5} {+ x {with {y 3} x}}}") => 10)
(test (run "{with {x 5} {with {y x} y}}") => 5)
(test (run "{with {x 5} {with {x x} x}}") => 5)
(test (run "{with {x 1} y}") =error> "free identifier")
