As a more complete example, consider \in{example}[ex:NormalComplete]. This
example contains everything that is supported in normal form, with the
-exception of builtin higher order functions.
+exception of builtin higher order functions. The graphical version of the
+architecture contains a slightly simplified version, since the state tuple
+packing and unpacking have been left out. Instead, two seperate registers are
+drawn. Also note that most synthesis tools will further optimize this
+architecture by removing the multiplexers at the register input and replace
+them with some logic in the clock inputs, but we want to show the architecture
+as close to the description as possible.
\startbuffer[NormalComplete]
regbank :: Bit
TODO: Formally describe the "apply to every (sub)expression" in terms of
rules with full transformations in the conditions.
+\subsection{Binder uniqueness}
+A common problem in transformation systems, is binder uniqueness. When not
+considering this problem, it is easy to create transformations that mix up
+bindings and cause name collisions. Take for example, the following core
+expression:
+
+\startlambda
+(λa.λb.λc. a * b * c) x c
+\stoplambda
+
+By applying β-reduction (see below) once, we can simplify this expression to:
+
+\startlambda
+(λb.λc. x * b * c) c
+\stoplambda
+
+Now, we have replaced the \lam{a} binder with a reference to the \lam{x}
+binder. No harm done here. But note that we see multiple occurences of the
+\lam{c} binder. The first is a binding occurence, to which the second refers.
+The last, however refers to \emph{another} instance of \lam{c}, which is
+bound somewhere outside of this expression. Now, if we would apply beta
+reduction without taking heed of binder uniqueness, we would get:
+
+\startlambda
+λc. x * c * c
+\stoplambda
+
+This is obviously not what was supposed to happen! The root of this problem is
+the reuse of binders: Identical binders can be bound in different scopes, such
+that only the inner one is \quote{visible} in the inner expression. In the example
+above, the \lam{c} binder was bound outside of the expression and in the inner
+lambda expression. Inside that lambda expression, only the inner \lam{c} is
+visible.
+
+There are a number of ways to solve this. \small{GHC} has isolated this
+problem to their binder substitution code, which performs \emph{deshadowing}
+during its expression traversal. This means that any binding that shadows
+another binding on a higher level is replaced by a new binder that does not
+shadow any other binding. This non-shadowing invariant is enough to prevent
+binder uniqueness problems in \small{GHC}.
+
+In our transformation system, maintaining this non-shadowing invariant is
+a bit harder to do (mostly due to implementation issues, the prototype doesn't
+use \small{GHC}'s subsitution code). Also, we can observe the following
+points.
+
+\startitemize
+\item Deshadowing does not guarantee overall uniqueness. For example, the
+following (slightly contrived) expression shows the identifier \lam{x} bound in
+two seperate places (and to different values), even though no shadowing
+occurs.
+
+\startlambda
+(let x = 1 in x) + (let x = 2 in x)
+\stoplambda
+
+\item In our normal form (and the resulting \small{VHDL}), all binders
+(signals) will end up in the same scope. To allow this, all binders within the
+same function should be unique.
+
+\item When we know that all binders in an expression are unique, moving around
+or removing a subexpression will never cause any binder conflicts. If we have
+some way to generate fresh binders, introducing new subexpressions will not
+cause any problems either. The only way to cause conflicts is thus to
+duplicate an existing subexpression.
+\stopitemize
+
+Given the above, our prototype maintains a unique binder invariant. This
+meanst that in any given moment during normalization, all binders \emph{within
+a single function} must be unique. To achieve this, we apply the following
+technique.
+
+TODO: Define fresh binders and unique supplies
+
+\startitemize
+\item Before starting normalization, all binders in the function are made
+unique. This is done by generating a fresh binder for every binder used. This
+also replaces binders that did not pose any conflict, but it does ensure that
+all binders within the function are generated by the same unique supply. See
+(TODO: ref fresh binder).
+\item Whenever a new binder must be generated, we generate a fresh binder that
+is guaranteed to be different from \emph{all binders generated so far}. This
+can thus never introduce duplication and will maintain the invariant.
+\item Whenever (part of) an expression is duplicated (for example when
+inlining), all binders in the expression are replaced with fresh binders
+(using the same method as at the start of normalization). These fresh binders
+can never introduce duplication, so this will maintain the invariant.
+\item Whenever we move part of an expression around within the function, there
+is no need to do anything special. There is obviously no way to introduce
+duplication by moving expressions around. Since we know that each of the
+binders is already unique, there is no way to introduce (incorrect) shadowing
+either.
+\stopitemize
+
\subsection{η-abstraction}
This transformation makes sure that all arguments of a function-typed
expression are named, by introducing lambda expressions. When combined with
projects / matthijs / master-project / report.git / blobdiff