In order for the CPS to work, we have to adopt a new restriction on
beta reduction: beta reduction does not occur underneath a lambda.
That is, `(\x.y)z` reduces to `z`, but `\u.(\x.y)z` does not reduce to
-`\w.z`, because the `\w` protects the redex in the body from
-reduction. (In this context, a redex is a part of a term that matches
+`\u.z`, because the `\u` protects the redex in the body from
+reduction. (In this context, a "redex" is a part of a term that matches
the pattern `...((\xM)N)...`, i.e., something that can potentially be
the target of beta reduction.)
Start with a simple form that has two different reduction paths:
-reducing the leftmost lambda first: `(\x.y)((\x.z)w) ~~> y`
+reducing the leftmost lambda first: `(\x.y)((\x.z)u) ~~> y`
-reducing the rightmost lambda first: `(\x.y)((\x.z)w) ~~> (\x.y)z ~~> y`
+reducing the rightmost lambda first: `(\x.y)((\x.z)u) ~~> (\x.y)z ~~> y`
After using the following call-by-name CPS transform---and assuming
that we never evaluate redexes protected by a lambda---only the first
[\xM] = \k.k(\x[M])
[MN] = \k.[M](\m.m[N]k)
-Here's the result of applying the transform to our problem term:
+Here's the result of applying the transform to our simple example:
[(\x.y)((\x.z)u)] =
\k.[\x.y](\m.m[(\x.z)u]k) =
[\x.y](\m.m[(\x.z)u] I) =
(\k.k(\x.y))(\m.m[(\x.z)u] I)
* *
- (\x.y)[(\x.z)u] I
+ (\x.y)[(\x.z)u] I --A--
*
y I
The application to `I` unlocks the leftmost functor. Because that
-functor (`\x.y`) throws away its argument, we never need to expand the
-CPS transform of the argument.
+functor (`\x.y`) throws away its argument (consider the reduction in the
+line marked (A)), we never need to expand the
+CPS transform of the argument. This means that we never bother to
+reduce redexes inside the argument.
Compare with a call-by-value xform:
This time the reduction unfolds in a different manner:
- {(\x.y)((\x.z)w)} I =
+ {(\x.y)((\x.z)u)} I =
(\k.{\x.y}(\m.{(\x.z)u}(\n.mnk))) I
*
{\x.y}(\m.{(\x.z)u}(\n.mnI)) =
{u}(\n.(\x.{z})n(\n.(\x.{y})nI)) =
(\k.ku)(\n.(\x.{z})n(\n.(\x.{y})nI))
* *
- (\x.{z})u(\n.(\x.{y})nI)
+ (\x.{z})u(\n.(\x.{y})nI) --A--
*
{z}(\n.(\x.{y})nI) =
(\k.kz)(\n.(\x.{y})nI)
*
I y
+In this case, the argument does get evaluated: consider the reduction
+in the line marked (A).
+
Both xforms make the following guarantee: as long as redexes
underneath a lambda are never evaluated, there will be at most one
reduction available at any step in the evaluation.
1. Prove that {(\x.y)(ww)} does not terminate.
-2. Why is the CBN xform for variables `[x] = x' instead of something
-involving kappas?
+2. Why is the CBN xform for variables `[x] = x` instead of something
+involving kappas (i.e., `k`'s)?
3. Write an Ocaml function that takes a lambda term and returns a
CPS-xformed lambda term. You can use the following data declaration:
5. What happens (in terms of evaluation order) when the application
rule for CBV CPS is changed to `{MN} = \k.{N}(\n.{M}(\m.mnk))`?
+6. A term and its CPS xform are different lambda terms. Yet in some
+sense they "do" the same thing computationally. Make this sense
+precise.
+
Thinking through the types
--------------------------
Excercise: what should the function ' be for the CBV xform? Hint:
see the Meyer and Wand abstract linked above for the answer.
+
+
+Other CPS transforms
+--------------------
+
+It is easy to think that CBN and CBV are the only two CPS transforms.
+(We've already seen a variant on call-by-value one of the excercises above.)
+
+In fact, the number of distinct transforms is unbounded. For
+instance, here is a variant of CBV that uses the same types as CBN:
+
+ <x> = x
+ <\xM> = \k.k(\x<M>)
+ <MN> = \k.<M>(\m.<N>(\n.m(\k.kn)k))
+
+Try reducing `<(\x.x) ((\y.y) (\z.z))> I` to convince yourself that
+this is a version of call-by-value.
+
+Once we have two evaluation strategies that rely on the same types, we
+can mix and match:
+
+ [x] = x
+ <x> = x
+ [\xM] = \k.k(\x<M>)
+ <\xM] = \k.k(\x[M])
+ [MN] = \k.<M>(\m.m<N>k)
+ <MN> = \k.[M](\m.[N](\n.m(\k.kn)k))
+
+This xform interleaves call-by-name and call-by-value in layers,
+according to the depth of embedding.
+