We introduce a generalization of monads, called relative monads, allowing for underlying functors between different categories. Examples include finite-dimensional vector spaces, untyped and typed lambda-calculus syntax and indexed containers. We show that the Kleisli and Eilenberg-Moore constructions carry over to relative monads and are related to relative adjunctions. Under reasonable assumptions, relative monads are monoids in the functor category concerned and extend to monads, giving rise to a coreflection between relative monads and monads. Arrows are also an instance of relative monads.

We present a closed dependent type theory whose inductive types are given not by a scheme for generative declarations, but by encoding in a universe. Each inductive datatype arises by interpreting its description - a first-class value in a datatype of descriptions. Moreover, the latter itself has a description. Datatype-generic programming thus becomes ordinary programming. We show some of the resulting generic operations and deploy them in particular, useful ways on the datatype of datatype descriptions itself. Simulations in existing systems suggest that this apparently self-supporting setup is achievable without paradox or infinite regress

The delay datatype was introduced by Capretta (Logical Methods in Computer Science, 1(2), article 1, 2005) as a means to deal with partial functions (as in computability theory) in Martin-Löf type theory. The delay datatype is a monad. It is often desirable to consider two delayed computations equal, if they terminate with equal values, whenever one of them terminates. The equivalence relation underlying this identification is called weak bisimilarity. In type theory, one commonly replaces quotients with setoids. In this approach, the delay datatype quotiented by weak bisimilarity is still a monad–a constructive alternative to the maybe monad. In this paper, we consider the alternative approach of Hofmann (Extensional Constructs in Intensional Type Theory, Springer, London, 1997) of extending type theory with inductive-like quotient types. In this setting, it is difficult to define the intended monad multiplication for the quotiented datatype. We give a solution where we postulate some principles, crucially proposition extensionality and the (semi-classical) axiom of countable choice. With the aid of these principles, we also prove that the quotiented delay datatype delivers free ω-complete pointed partial orders (ωcppos).Altenkirch et al. (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10203, Springer, Heidelberg, 534–549, 2017) demonstrated that, in homotopy type theory, a certain higher inductive–inductive type is the free ωcppo on a type X essentially by definition; this allowed them to obtain a monad of free ωcppos without recourse to a choice principle. We notice that, by a similar construction, a simpler ordinary higher inductive type gives the free countably complete join semilattice on the unit type 1. This type suffices for constructing a monad, which is isomorphic to the one of Altenkirch et al. We have fully formalized our results in the Agda dependently typed programming language.

We abstract the common type-and-scope safe structure from computations on λ-terms that deliver, e.g., renaming, substitution, evaluation, CPS-transformation, and printing with a name supply. By exposing this structure, we can prove generic simulation and fusion lemmas relating operations built this way. This work has been fully formalised in Agda.

Almost every programming language’s syntax includes a notion of binder and corresponding bound occurrences, along with the accompanying notions of α-equivalence, capture avoiding substitution, typing contexts, runtime environments, and so on. In the past, implementing and reasoning about programming languages required careful handling to maintain the correct behaviour of bound variables. Modern programming languages include features that enable constraints like scope safety to be expressed in types. Nevertheless, the programmer is still forced to write the same boilerplate over again for each new implementation of a scope safe operation (e.g., renaming, substitution, desugaring, printing, etc.), and then again for correctness proofs. We present an expressive universe of syntaxes with binding and demonstrate how to (1) implement scope safe traversals once and for all by generic programming; and (2) how to derive properties of these traversals by generic proving. Our universe description, generic traversals and proofs, and our examples have all been formalised in Agda and are available in the accompanying material. NB. we recommend printing the paper in colour to benefit from syntax highlighting in code fragments.