Skip to content

Term Rewriting

In term rewriting a term is transformed by repeated application of rewrite rules. To see how this works we take as example the language of propositional formulae, also known as Boolean expressions:

module prop
  sorts Prop
    False : Prop
    True  : Prop
    Atom  : String -> Prop
    Not   : Prop -> Prop
    And   : Prop * Prop -> Prop
    Or    : Prop * Prop -> Prop
    Impl  : Prop * Prop -> Prop
    Eq    : Prop * Prop -> Prop

Given this signature we can write terms such as And(Impl(True(),False()),False()), and And(Atom("p"),False())). Atoms are also known as proposition letters; they are the variables in propositional formulae. That is, the truth value of an atom should be provided in order to fully evaluate an expression. Here we will evaluate expressions as far as possible, a transformation also known as constant folding. We will do this using rewrite rules that define how to simplify a single operator application.

Term Patterns

A term pattern is a term with meta variables, which are identifiers that are not declared as (nullary) constructors. For example, And(x, True()) is a term pattern with variable x. Variables in term patterns are sometimes called meta variables, to distinguish them from variables in the source language being processed. For example, while atoms in the proposition expressions are variables from the point of view of the language, they are not variables from the perspective of a Stratego program.

A term pattern p matches with a term t, if there is a substitution that replaces the variables in p such that it becomes equal to t. For example, the pattern And(x, True()) matches the term And(Impl(True(),Atom("p")),True()) because replacing the variable x in the pattern by Impl(True(),Atom("p")) makes the pattern equal to the term. Note that And(Atom("x"),True()) does not match the term And(Impl(True(),Atom("p")),True()), since the subterms Atom("x") and Impl(True(),Atom("p")) do not match.

Rewrite Rules

An unconditional rewrite rule has the form L : p1 -> p2, where L is the name of the rule, p1 is the left-hand side and p2 the right-hand side term pattern. A rewrite rule L : p1 -> p2 applies to a term t when the pattern p1 matches t. The result is the instantiation of p2 with the variable bindings found during matching. For example, the rewrite rule

E : Eq(x, False()) -> Not(x)

rewrites the term Eq(Atom("q"),False()) to Not(Atom("q")), since the variable x is bound to the subterm Atom("q").

Evaluation Rules

Now we can create similar evaluation rules for all constructors of sort Prop:

module prop-eval-rules
imports prop
  E : Not(True())      -> False()
  E : Not(False())     -> True()
  E : And(True(), x)   -> x
  E : And(x, True())   -> x
  E : And(False(), x)  -> False()
  E : And(x, False())  -> False()
  E : Or(True(), x)    -> True()
  E : Or(x, True())    -> True()
  E : Or(False(), x)   -> x
  E : Or(x, False())   -> x
  E : Impl(True(), x)  -> x
  E : Impl(x, True())  -> True()
  E : Impl(False(), x) -> True()
  E : Impl(x, False()) -> Not(x)
  E : Eq(False(), x)   -> Not(x)
  E : Eq(x, False())   -> Not(x)
  E : Eq(True(), x)    -> x
  E : Eq(x, True())    -> x
  eval = innermost(E)

Note that all rules have the same name, which is allowed in Stratego.

The module defines the eval strategy to apply innermost(E) to the input term. The innermost strategy from the library exhaustively applies its argument transformation to the term it is applied to, starting with inner subterms.

As an aside, we have now seen Stratego modules with rules and strategies sections. It is worth noting that a module can have any number of sections of either type, and that there is no actual semantic difference between the two section headings. In fact, either rewrite rules and/or strategy definitions can occur in either kind of section. Nevertheless, it often helps with making your transformations clearer to generally segregate rules and strategy definitions, and so both headings are allowed so you can punctuate your Stratego modules with them to improve readability.

The next commands apply the eval strategy to various terms.

<eval> And(Impl(True(),And(False,True)),True) => False

<eval> And(Impl(True,And(Atom("p"),Atom("q"))),Atom("p"))
    => And(And(Atom("p"),Atom("q")),Atom("p"))

Adding Rules to a Rewrite System

Next we extend the rewrite rules above to rewrite a Boolean expression to disjunctive normal form. A Boolean expression is in disjunctive normal form if it conforms to the following signature:

  sorts Or And NAtom Atom
    Or   : Or * Or -> Or
         : And -> Or
    And  : And * And -> And
         : NAtom -> And
    Not  : Atom -> NAtom
         : Atom -> NAtom
    Atom : String -> Atom

We use this signature only to describe what a disjunctive normal form is, not in an the actual Stratego program. This is not necessary, since terms conforming to the DNF signature are also Prop terms as defined before. For example, the disjunctive normal form of




Module prop-dnf-rules extends the rules defined in prop-eval-rules with rules to achieve disjunctive normal forms:

module prop-dnf-rules
imports prop-eval-rules
  E : Impl(x, y) -> Or(Not(x), y)
  E : Eq(x, y)   -> And(Impl(x, y), Impl(y, x))

  E : Not(Not(x)) -> x

  E : Not(And(x, y)) -> Or(Not(x), Not(y))
  E : Not(Or(x, y))  -> And(Not(x), Not(y))

  E : And(Or(x, y), z) -> Or(And(x, z), And(y, z))
  E : And(z, Or(x, y)) -> Or(And(z, x), And(z, y))
  dnf = innermost(E)

The first two rules rewrite implication (Impl) and equivalence (Eq) to combinations of And, Or, and Not. The third rule removes double negation. The fifth and sixth rules implement the well known DeMorgan laws. The last two rules define distribution of conjunction over disjunction.

Last update: 2021-11-15
Back to top