Programming Languages in Haskell

Support for EECS 662 at KU

\[\newcommand\calc{\mathsf{calc}\;} \newcommand\parse{\mathsf{parse}\;} \newcommand\typeof{\mathsf{typeof}\;} \newcommand\interp{\mathsf{interp}\;} \newcommand\eval{ \Downarrow } \newcommand\NUM{\mathsf{NUM}\;} \newcommand\iif{\mathsf{if}\;} \newcommand\tthen{\;\mathsf{then}\;} \newcommand\eelse{\;\mathsf{else}\;} \newcommand\iisZero{\mathsf{isZero}\;} \newcommand\aand{\;\mathsf{\&\&}\;} \newcommand\lleq{\;\mathtt{<=}\;} \newcommand\ttrue{\;\mathsf{true}} \newcommand\ffalse{\;\mathsf{false}}\]

Adding New Values

Our initial interpreter for arithmetic expressions has several nice properties. All AE programs halt. There is no mechanism for repeating execution, thus it should not be at all surprising that every AE program terminates and returns a value. No AE programs crash. If an AE program parses and can be constructed in the AE abstract syntax, it cannot crash during execution. There is only one value type and the addition and subtraction operations are closed over that type. Said differently, everything is an integer and plus and minus are defined over any pair of integers.

Unfortunately, the same features of AE that make all programs terminate and not crash makes AE useless for programming. We can’t have multiple value types, we can’t define variables, we can’t define functions, and we can’t loop. To write real programs, we have to have at least some of these capabilities.

Multiple Value Types

Let’s address the first issue - a lack of diverse value types - by adding Boolean values and operations over those values. Specifically, we will add if, <=, &&, and isZero as well as the values true and false. Certainly this is not a complete set of Boolean operations, but is a representative sample.

Concrete Syntax

Adding concrete syntax for Boolean values and operations is a simple matter of adding Boolean constant representations and representations for the various operations. The new concrete syntax for a language we will call ABE (Arithmetic and Boolean Expressions) is

\[\begin{align*} t ::= & \NUM \mid t + t \mid t - t \\ & \mid \ttrue \mid \ffalse \mid \iif t \tthen t \eelse t \\ & \mid t \lleq t \mid t \aand t \mid \iisZero t \\ \end{align*}\]

We also need to update our concept of a value to include $\ttrue$ and $\ffalse$:

\[\begin{align*} v := \NUM \mid \ttrue \mid \ffalse \\ \end{align*}\]

The need to add new values foreshadows interesting times ahead.

Inference Rules

Let’s start with our inference rules for AE and extend them to include new rules for ABE constructs. Here are the original evaluation rules for AE:

\[\frac{}{\underline{v} \eval v}\; [NumE]\] \[\frac{t_1\eval v_1,\; t_2\eval v_2}{t_1 \underline{+} t_2\eval v_1+v_2}\; [PlusE]\] \[\frac{t_1\eval v_1,\; t_2\eval v_2}{t_1 \underline{-} t_2 \eval v_1-v_2}\; [MinusE]\]

Boolean values are just like numerical values. So much so that we do no not need another rule for values. However, we will rename the $NumE$ rule to reflect that it now covers all values:

\[\frac{}{\underline{v} \eval v}\; [ValueE]\]

Rules for $\aand$ and $\lleq$ follow the same pattern as rules for $+$ and $-$:

\[\frac{t_1 \eval v_1,\; t_2 \eval v_2}{t_1 \aand t_2 \eval v_1 \wedge v_2}\; [AndE]\] \[\frac{t_1 \eval v_1,\; t_2 \eval v_2}{t_1 \lleq t_2 \eval v_1\leq v_2}\; [LeqE]\]

The rule for $\iisZero$ is only modestly different because it is a unary operation. Unsurprisingly it has only one antecedent:

\[\frac{t \eval v}{\iisZero t\eval v==0}\; [isZeroE]\]

Finally, let’s deal with $\iif$. Thinking of $\iif$ as simply an operation with three arguments, we can follow our previous pattern giving us this pair of rules:

\[\frac{t_0 \eval \ttrue,\; t_1 \eval v_1}{\iif t_0 \tthen t_1 \eelse t_2 \eval v_1}\;[IfTrueE]\] \[\frac{t_0 \eval \ffalse,\; t_2 \eval v_2}{\iif t_0 \tthen t_1 \eelse t_2 \eval v_2}\;[IfFalseE]\]

The $IfTrueE$ only applies when $t_0$ evaluates to $\ttrue$ while $IfFalseE$ applies when $t_0$ evaluates to $\ffalse$. Note that only one arm of the if expression is evaluated in each rule. In $IfTrueE$ the expression associated with true is evaluated while in $IfFalseE$ only the expression associated with false.

Abstract Syntax

We need to extend our abstract syntax for AE to handle new constructs. We will start with true and false, the Boolean constant values. To represent these values in the abstract syntax, we will use a technique similar to numbers. Specifically, the Haskell True and False values will be lifted into our AST using the constructor Boolean:

Boolean :: Bool -> ABE

While True and False are values in Haskell, (Boolean True) and (Boolean False) are values in our language.

Next we will add unary and binary operations over Boolean values. These operations are no different than binary and unary operations over integers:

  And :: ABE -> ABE -> ABE
  Leq :: ABE -> ABE -> ABE
  IsZero :: ABE -> ABE

Finally, we add an if construct in the canonical fashion as if it were simply a three-argument function:

  If :: ABE -> ABE -> ABE -> ABE

The resulting complete AST structure is now:

data ABE where
  Num :: Int -> ABE
  Plus :: ABE -> ABE -> ABE
  Minus :: ABE -> ABE -> ABE
  Boolean :: Bool -> ABE
  And :: ABE -> ABE -> ABE
  Leq :: ABE -> ABE -> ABE
  IsZero :: ABE -> ABE
  If :: ABE -> ABE -> ABE -> ABE
  deriving (Show,Eq)


Finally. We have abstract syntax defined from concrete syntax and can now write our interpreter. This involves extending the AE eval function to include new cases for the new Boolean operations. The initial definition is:

eval :: ABE -> Maybe ABE
eval (Num x) = return (Num x)
eval (Plus t1 t2) = do { v1 <- (eval t1)
                         v2 <- (eval t2)
                         return (Num (liftNum (+) v1 v2)) }
eval (Minus t1 t2) = do { v1 <- (eval t1)
                          v2 <- (eval t2)
                          return (Num (liftNum (-) v1 v2)) }

The additional cases are largely as one would anticipate. And Leq and IsZero each evaluate their arguments and return an appropriate result. The only real change is operations can now return types that differ from their argument types. This is not a big change, but operations are no longer closed.

The If construct differs in that not all arguments are evaluated before the If. The condition is evaluated and the Haskell if expression is used to evaluate the appropriate then or else expression. Note that in both ABE and Haskell if is an expression that returns a value when calculated. This is in contrast to languages like C or Java where if is a command that sequences execution. We’ll revisit this concept later.

eval (Boolean b) = (Just (Boolean b))
eval (And t1 t2) = do { r1 <- (eval t1) ;
                        r2 <- (eval t2) ;
                        return (liftBool (&&) r1 r2) }
eval (Leq t1 t2) = do { r1 <- (eval t1) ;
                        r2 <- (eval t2) ;
                        return (liftNum2Bool (<=) r1 r2) }
eval (IsZero t) = do { r <- (eval t) ;
                       return (liftNum2Bool (==) r (Num 0)) }
eval (If t1 t2 t3) = do { (Boolean v) <- (eval t1) ;
                          (if v then (eval t2) else (eval t3)) }

We’ll combine the eval and parseABE functions into a single interp function just like we did before:

interp = eval . parseABE


Testing the ABE interp function reveals a big change in our new interpreter. Examples such as:

interp 3+5
== (Just (Num 8))
interp if true then 5 else 10
== (Just (Num 6))
interp 5<=3
== (Just (Boolean false))

all work as anticipated, calculating the correct value and returning it as abstract syntax embedded in a Maybe monad.

The big change is this interpreter crashes. Our AE interpreter did not crash. No well-formed term would cause the interpreter to belly up. For ABE there are many cases that crash. For example:

interp false + 5
interp if 3 then true else 7
interp true <= 7

all cause the interpreter to crash into Haskell. It should be quite clear why the crashes occur. Specifically, plus is not defined over false, if’s first argument must be Boolean and true cannot be compared with 7. If we allow these expressions to be interpreted, there is no proper result. However, if we can predict failure before interpretation we can gracefully fail rather than drop out of our interpreter to Haskell.


ABE is only moderately less silly than AE. We simply extended AE to include Boolean values and several new operations that both consume and produce Boolean values. By doing this, we now have an interpreter that crashes for some inputs.

Working through ABE does have value. We extended AE to include Boolean values and terms, then extended the AE parser, pretty printer, evaluator, and generator. In subsequent chapters we’ll see that the techniques we used generalize to other languages. For now, we must do something about failure before moving on.


  1. Add disjunction and negation to the ABE language. Define concrete syntax and abstract syntax. Update the parser, pretty printer, evaluator, and QuickCheck term generator.
  2. Add multiplication and division to the ABE language. Define concrete syntax and abstract syntax. Update the parser, pretty printer, evaluator, and QuickCheck term generator.
  3. Write a function that walks the ABE AST and counts the number of Boolean operations.