# Generics: Details ## Table of contents - [Overview](#overview) - [Interfaces](#interfaces) - [Implementing interfaces](#implementing-interfaces) - [Implementing multiple interfaces](#implementing-multiple-interfaces) - [External impl](#external-impl) - [Qualified member names](#qualified-member-names) - [Access](#access) - [Generics](#generics) - [Return type](#return-type) - [Implementation model](#implementation-model) - [Interfaces recap](#interfaces-recap) - [Type-of-types](#type-of-types) - [Named constraints](#named-constraints) - [Subtyping between type-of-types](#subtyping-between-type-of-types) - [Combining interfaces by anding type-of-types](#combining-interfaces-by-anding-type-of-types) - [Interface requiring other interfaces](#interface-requiring-other-interfaces) - [Interface extension](#interface-extension) - [`extends` and `impl` with named constraints](#extends-and-impl-with-named-constraints) - [Diamond dependency issue](#diamond-dependency-issue) - [Use case: overload resolution](#use-case-overload-resolution) - [Adapting types](#adapting-types) - [Adapter compatibility](#adapter-compatibility) - [Extending adapter](#extending-adapter) - [Use case: Using independent libraries together](#use-case-using-independent-libraries-together) - [Use case: Defining an impl for use by other types](#use-case-defining-an-impl-for-use-by-other-types) - [Use case: Private impl](#use-case-private-impl) - [Use case: Accessing external names](#use-case-accessing-external-names) - [Adapter with stricter invariants](#adapter-with-stricter-invariants) - [Associated constants](#associated-constants) - [Associated class functions](#associated-class-functions) - [Associated types](#associated-types) - [Implementation model](#implementation-model-1) - [Parameterized interfaces](#parameterized-interfaces) - [Impl lookup](#impl-lookup) - [Parameterized named constraints](#parameterized-named-constraints) - [Where constraints](#where-constraints) - [Constraint use cases](#constraint-use-cases) - [Set an associated constant to a specific value](#set-an-associated-constant-to-a-specific-value) - [Same type constraints](#same-type-constraints) - [Set an associated type to a specific value](#set-an-associated-type-to-a-specific-value) - [Equal generic types](#equal-generic-types) - [Satisfying both type-of-types](#satisfying-both-type-of-types) - [Type bound for associated type](#type-bound-for-associated-type) - [Type bounds on associated types in declarations](#type-bounds-on-associated-types-in-declarations) - [Type bounds on associated types in interfaces](#type-bounds-on-associated-types-in-interfaces) - [Combining constraints](#combining-constraints) - [Recursive constraints](#recursive-constraints) - [Parameterized type implements interface](#parameterized-type-implements-interface) - [Another type implements parameterized interface](#another-type-implements-parameterized-interface) - [Implied constraints](#implied-constraints) - [Must be legal type argument constraints](#must-be-legal-type-argument-constraints) - [Open question: referencing names in the interface being defined](#open-question-referencing-names-in-the-interface-being-defined) - [Manual type equality](#manual-type-equality) - [`observe` declarations](#observe-declarations) - [Other constraints as type-of-types](#other-constraints-as-type-of-types) - [Is a derived class](#is-a-derived-class) - [Type compatible with another type](#type-compatible-with-another-type) - [Same implementation restriction](#same-implementation-restriction) - [Example: Multiple implementations of the same interface](#example-multiple-implementations-of-the-same-interface) - [Example: Creating an impl out of other impls](#example-creating-an-impl-out-of-other-impls) - [Sized types and type-of-types](#sized-types-and-type-of-types) - [Implementation model](#implementation-model-2) - [`TypeId`](#typeid) - [Generic `let`](#generic-let) - [Parameterized impls](#parameterized-impls) - [Impl for a parameterized type](#impl-for-a-parameterized-type) - [Conditional conformance](#conditional-conformance) - [Conditional methods](#conditional-methods) - [Blanket impls](#blanket-impls) - [Difference between blanket impls and named constraints](#difference-between-blanket-impls-and-named-constraints) - [Wildcard impls](#wildcard-impls) - [Combinations](#combinations) - [Lookup resolution and specialization](#lookup-resolution-and-specialization) - [Type structure of an impl declaration](#type-structure-of-an-impl-declaration) - [Orphan rule](#orphan-rule) - [Overlap rule](#overlap-rule) - [Prioritization rule](#prioritization-rule) - [Acyclic rule](#acyclic-rule) - [Termination rule](#termination-rule) - [`final` impls](#final-impls) - [Libraries that can contain `final` impls](#libraries-that-can-contain-final-impls) - [Comparison to Rust](#comparison-to-rust) - [Interface members with definitions](#interface-members-with-definitions) - [Interface defaults](#interface-defaults) - [`final` members](#final-members) - [Future work](#future-work) - [Dynamic types](#dynamic-types) - [Runtime type parameters](#runtime-type-parameters) - [Runtime type fields](#runtime-type-fields) - [Abstract return types](#abstract-return-types) - [Evolution](#evolution) - [Testing](#testing) - [Operator overloading](#operator-overloading) - [Impls with state](#impls-with-state) - [Generic associated types and higher-ranked types](#generic-associated-types-and-higher-ranked-types) - [Generic associated types](#generic-associated-types) - [Higher-ranked types](#higher-ranked-types) - [Field requirements](#field-requirements) - [Generic type specialization](#generic-type-specialization) - [Bridge for C++ customization points](#bridge-for-c-customization-points) - [Variadic arguments](#variadic-arguments) - [Range constraints on generic integers](#range-constraints-on-generic-integers) - [Separate declaration and definition of impl](#separate-declaration-and-definition-of-impl) - [References](#references) ## Overview This document goes into the details of the design of generic type parameters. Imagine we want to write a function parameterized by a type argument. Maybe our function is `PrintToStdout` and let's say we want to operate on values that have a type for which we have an implementation of the `ConvertibleToString` interface. The `ConvertibleToString` interface has a `ToString` method returning a string. To do this, we give the `PrintToStdout` function two parameters: one is the value to print, let's call that `val`, the other is the type of that value, let's call that `T`. The type of `val` is `T`, what is the type of `T`? Well, since we want to let `T` be any type implementing the `ConvertibleToString` interface, we express that in the "interfaces are type-of-types" model by saying the type of `T` is `ConvertibleToString`. Since we can figure out `T` from the type of `val`, we don't need the caller to pass in `T` explicitly, so it can be a [deduced parameter](terminology.md#deduced-parameter) (also see [deduced parameters](overview.md#deduced-parameters) in the Generics overview doc). Basically, the user passes in a value for `val`, and the type of `val` determines `T`. `T` still gets passed into the function though, and it plays an important role -- it defines the implementation of the interface. We can think of the interface as defining a struct type whose members are function pointers, and an implementation of an interface as a value of that struct with actual function pointer values. So an implementation is a table of function pointers (one per function defined in the interface) that gets passed into a function as the type argument. For more on this, see [the implementation model section](#implementation-model) below. In addition to function pointer members, interfaces can include any constants that belong to a type. For example, the [type's size](#sized-types-and-type-of-types) (represented by an integer constant member of the type) could be a member of an interface and its implementation. There are a few cases why we would include another interface implementation as a member: - [associated types](#associated-types) - [type parameters](#parameterized-interfaces) - [interface requirements](#interface-requiring-other-interfaces) The function expresses that the type argument is passed in [statically](terminology.md#static-dispatch-witness-table), basically generating a separate function body for every different type passed in, by using the "generic argument" syntax `:!`, see [the generics section](#generics) below. The interface contains enough information to [type and definition check](terminology.md#complete-definition-checking) the function body -- you can only call functions defined in the interface in the function body. Contrast this with making the type a template argument, where you could just use `Type` instead of an interface and it will work as long as the function is only called with types that allow the definition of the function to compile. The interface bound has other benefits: - allows the compiler to deliver clearer error messages, - documents expectations, and - expresses that a type has certain semantics beyond what is captured in its member function names and signatures. The last piece of the puzzle is calling the function. For a value of type `Song` to be printed using the `PrintToStdout` function, `Song` needs to implement the `ConvertibleToString` interface. Interface implementations will usually be defined either with the type or with the interface. They may also be defined somewhere else as long as Carbon can be guaranteed to see the definition when needed. For more on this, see [the implementing interfaces section](#implementing-interfaces) below. Unless the implementation of `ConvertibleToString` for `Song` is defined as `external`, every member of `ConvertibleToString` is also a member of `Song`. This includes members of `ConvertibleToString` that are not explicitly named in the `impl` definition but have defaults. Whether the implementation is defined as [internal](terminology.md#internal-impl) or [external](terminology.md#external-impl), you may access the `ToString` function for a `Song` value `s` by writing a [qualified](terminology.md#qualified-and-unqualified-member-names) function call, like `s.(ConvertibleToString.ToString)()`. If `Song` doesn't implement an interface or we would like to use a different implementation of that interface, we can define another type that also has the same data representation as `Song` that has whatever different interface implementations we want. However, Carbon won't implicitly convert to that other type, the user will have to explicitly cast to that type in order to select those alternate implementations. For more on this, see [the adapting type section](#adapting-types) below. ## Interfaces An [interface](terminology.md#interface), defines an API that a given type can implement. For example, an interface capturing a linear-algebra vector API might have two methods: ``` interface Vector { // Here `Self` means "the type implementing this interface". fn Add[me: Self](b: Self) -> Self; fn Scale[me: Self](v: f64) -> Self; } ``` The syntax here is to match [how the same members would be defined in a type](/docs/design/classes.md#methods). Each declaration in the interface defines an [associated entity](terminology.md#associated-entity). In this example, `Vector` has two associated methods, `Add` and `Scale`. An interface defines a type-of-type, that is a type whose values are types. The values of an interface are any types implementing the interface, and so provide definitions for all the functions (and other members) declared in the interface. ## Implementing interfaces Carbon interfaces are ["nominal"](terminology.md#nominal-interfaces), which means that types explicitly describe how they implement interfaces. An ["impl"](terminology.md#impls-implementations-of-interfaces) defines how one interface is implemented for a type. Every associated entity is given a definition. Different types satisfying `Vector` can have different definitions for `Add` and `Scale`, so we say their definitions are _associated_ with what type is implementing `Vector`. The `impl` defines what is associated with the type for that interface. Impls may be defined inline inside the type definition: ``` class Point { var x: f64; var y: f64; impl as Vector { // In this scope, "Self" is an alias for "Point". fn Add[me: Self](b: Self) -> Self { return {.x = a.x + b.x, .y = a.y + b.y}; } fn Scale[me: Self](v: f64) -> Self { return {.x = a.x * v, .y = a.y * v}; } } } ``` Interfaces that are implemented inline contribute to the type's API: ``` var p1: Point = {.x = 1.0, .y = 2.0}; var p2: Point = {.x = 2.0, .y = 4.0}; Assert(p1.Scale(2.0) == p2); Assert(p1.Add(p1) == p2); ``` **Note:** A type may implement any number of different interfaces, but may provide at most one implementation of any single interface. This makes the act of selecting an implementation of an interface for a type unambiguous throughout the whole program. **Comparison with other languages:** Rust defines implementations lexically outside of the `class` definition. This Carbon approach means that a type's API is described by declarations inside the `class` definition and doesn't change afterwards. **References:** This interface implementation syntax was accepted in [proposal #553](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/553). In particular, see [the alternatives considered](/proposals/p0553.md#interface-implementation-syntax). ### Implementing multiple interfaces To implement more than one interface when defining a type, simply include an `impl` block per interface. ``` class Point { var x: f64; var y: f64; impl as Vector { fn Add[me: Self](b: Self) -> Self { ... } fn Scale[me: Self](v: f64) -> Self { ... } } impl as Drawable { fn Draw[me: Self]() { ... } } } ``` In this case, all the functions `Add`, `Scale`, and `Draw` end up a part of the API for `Point`. This means you can't implement two interfaces that have a name in common (unless you use an `external impl` for one or both, as described below). ``` class GameBoard { impl as Drawable { fn Draw[me: Self]() { ... } } impl as EndOfGame { // ❌ Error: `GameBoard` has two methods named // `Draw` with the same signature. fn Draw[me: Self]() { ... } fn Winner[me: Self](player: i32) { ... } } } ``` **Open question:** Should we have some syntax for the case where you want both names to be given the same implementation? It seems like that might be a common case, but we won't really know if this is an important case until we get more experience. ``` class Player { var name: String; impl as Icon { fn Name[me: Self]() -> String { return me.name; } // ... } impl as GameUnit { // Possible syntax options for defining // `GameUnit.Name` as the same as `Icon.Name`: alias Name = Icon.Name; fn Name[me: Self]() -> String = Icon.Name; // ... } } ``` ### External impl Interfaces may also be implemented for a type [externally](terminology.md#external-impl), by using the `external impl` construct. An external impl does not add the interface's methods to the type. ``` class Point2 { var x: f64; var y: f64; external impl as Vector { // In this scope, `Self` is an alias for `Point2`. fn Add[me: Self](b: Self) -> Self { return {.x = a.x + b.x, .y = a.y + b.y}; } fn Scale[me: Self](v: f64) -> Self { return {.x = a.x * v, .y = a.y * v}; } } } var a: Point2 = {.x = 1.0, .y = 2.0}; // `a` does *not* have `Add` and `Scale` methods: // ❌ Error: a.Add(a.Scale(2.0)); ``` An external impl may be defined out-of-line, by including the name of the existing type before `as`, which is otherwise optional: ``` class Point3 { var x: f64; var y: f64; } external impl Point3 as Vector { // In this scope, `Self` is an alias for `Point3`. fn Add[me: Self](b: Self) -> Self { return {.x = a.x + b.x, .y = a.y + b.y}; } fn Scale[me: Self](v: f64) -> Self { return {.x = a.x * v, .y = a.y * v}; } } var a: Point3 = {.x = 1.0, .y = 2.0}; // `a` does *not* have `Add` and `Scale` methods: // ❌ Error: a.Add(a.Scale(2.0)); ``` **References:** The external interface implementation syntax was decided in [proposal #553](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/553). In particular, see [the alternatives considered](/proposals/p0553.md#interface-implementation-syntax). The `external impl` statement is allowed to be defined in a different library from `Point3`, restricted by [the coherence/orphan rules](#impl-lookup) that ensure that the implementation of an interface can't change based on imports. In particular, the `external impl` statement is allowed in the library defining the interface (`Vector` in this case) in addition to the library that defines the type (`Point3` here). This (at least partially) addresses [the expression problem](https://eli.thegreenplace.net/2016/the-expression-problem-and-its-solutions). Carbon requires `impl`s defined in a different library to be `external` so that the API of `Point3` doesn't change based on what is imported. It would be particularly bad if two different libraries implemented interfaces with conflicting names that both affected the API of a single type. As a consequence of this restriction, you can find all the names of direct (unqualified) members of a type in the definition of that type. The only thing that may be in another library is an `impl` of an interface. You might also use `external impl` to implement an interface for a type to avoid cluttering the API of that type, for example to avoid a name collision. A syntax for reusing method implementations allows us to do this selectively when needed. In this case, the `external impl` may be declared lexically inside the class scope. ``` class Point4a { var x: f64; var y: f64; fn Add[me: Self](b: Self) -> Self { return {.x = a.x + b.x, .y = a.y + b.y}; } external impl as Vector { alias Add = Point4a.Add; // Syntax TBD fn Scale[me: Self](v: f64) -> Self { return {.x = a.x * v, .y = a.y * v}; } } } // OR: class Point4b { var x: f64; var y: f64; external impl as Vector { fn Add[me: Self](b: Self) -> Self { return {.x = a.x + b.x, .y = a.y + b.y}; } fn Scale[me: Self](v: f64) -> Self { return {.x = a.x * v, .y = a.y * v}; } } alias Add = Vector.Add; // Syntax TBD } // OR: class Point4c { var x: f64; var y: f64; fn Add[me: Self](b: Self) -> Self { return {.x = a.x + b.x, .y = a.y + b.y}; } } external impl Point4c as Vector { alias Add = Point4c.Add; // Syntax TBD fn Scale[me: Self](v: f64) -> Self { return {.x = a.x * v, .y = a.y * v}; } } ``` Being defined lexically inside the class means that implementation is available to other members defined in the class. For example, it would allow implementing another interface or method that requires this interface to be implemented. **Open question:** Do implementations need to be defined lexically inside the class to get access to private members, or is it sufficient to be defined in the same library as the class? **Rejected alternative:** We could allow types to have different APIs in different files based on explicit configuration in that file. For example, we could support a declaration that a given interface or a given method of an interface is "in scope" for a particular type in this file. With that declaration, the method could be called unqualified. This avoids most concerns arising from name collisions between interfaces. It has a few downsides though: - It increases variability between files, since the same type will have different APIs depending on these declarations. This makes it harder to copy-paste code between files. - It makes reading code harder, since you have to search the file for these declarations that affect name lookup. **Comparison with other languages:** Both Rust and Swift support external implementation. [Swift's syntax](https://docs.swift.org/swift-book/LanguageGuide/Protocols.html#ID277) does this as an "extension" of the original type. In Rust, all implementations are external as in [this example](https://doc.rust-lang.org/rust-by-example/trait.html). Unlike Swift and Rust, we don't allow a type's API to be modified outside its definition. So in Carbon a type's API is consistent no matter what is imported, unlike Swift and Rust. ### Qualified member names Given a value of type `Point3` and an interface `Vector` implemented for that type, you can access the methods from that interface using the member's _qualified name_, whether or not the implementation is done externally with an `external impl` declaration: ``` var p1: Point3 = {.x = 1.0, .y = 2.0}; var p2: Point3 = {.x = 2.0, .y = 4.0}; Assert(p1.(Vector.Scale)(2.0) == p2); Assert(p1.(Vector.Add)(p1) == p2); ``` Note that the name in the parens is looked up in the containing scope, not in the names of members of `Point3`. So if there was another interface `Drawable` with method `Draw` defined in the `Plot` package also implemented for `Point3`, as in: ``` package Plot; import Points; interface Drawable { fn Draw[me: Self](); } external impl Points.Point3 as Drawable { ... } ``` You could access `Draw` with a qualified name: ``` import Plot; import Points; var p: Points.Point3 = {.x = 1.0, .y = 2.0}; p.(Plot.Drawable.Draw)(); ``` **Comparison with other languages:** This is intended to be analogous to, in C++, adding `ClassName::` in front of a member name to disambiguate, such as [names defined in both a parent and child class](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/357307/how-to-call-a-parent-class-function-from-derived-class-function). ### Access An `impl` must be visible to all code that can see both the type and the interface being implemented: - If either the type or interface is private to a single file, then since the only way to define the `impl` is to use that private name, the `impl` must be defined private to that file as well. - Otherwise, if the type or interface is private but declared in an API file, then the `impl` must be declared in the same file so the existence of that `impl` is visible to all files in that library. - Otherwise, the `impl` must be defined in the public API file of the library, so it is visible in all places that might use it. No access control modifiers are allowed on `impl` declarations, an `impl` is always visible to the intersection of the visibility of all names used in the declaration of the `impl`. ## Generics Here is a function that can accept values of any type that has implemented the `Vector` interface: ``` fn AddAndScaleGeneric[T:! Vector](a: T, b: T, s: f64) -> T { return a.Add(b).Scale(s); } var v: Point = AddAndScaleGeneric(a, w, 2.5); ``` Here `T` is a type whose type is `Vector`. The `:!` syntax means that `T` is a _[generic parameter](terminology.md#generic-versus-template-parameters)_. That means it must be known to the caller, but we will only use the information present in the signature of the function to type check the body of `AddAndScaleGeneric`'s definition. In this case, we know that any value of type `T` implements the `Vector` interface and so has an `Add` and a `Scale` method. **References:** The `:!` syntax was accepted in [proposal #676](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/676). Names are looked up in the body of `AddAndScaleGeneric` for values of type `T` in `Vector`. This means that `AddAndScaleGeneric` is interpreted as equivalent to adding a `Vector` qualification to all unqualified member accesses of `T`: ``` fn AddAndScaleGeneric[T:! Vector](a: T, b: T, s: Double) -> T { return a.(Vector.Add)(b).(Vector.Scale)(s); } ``` With these qualifications, the function can be type-checked for any `T` implementing `Vector`. This type checking is equivalent to type checking the function with `T` set to an [archetype](terminology.md#archetype) of `Vector`. An archetype is a placeholder type considered to satisfy its constraint, which is `Vector` in this case, and no more. It acts as the most general type satisfying the interface. The effect of this is that an archetype of `Vector` acts like a [supertype](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtyping) of any `T` implementing `Vector`. For name lookup purposes, an archetype is considered to have [implemented its constraint internally](terminology.md#internal-impl). The only oddity is that the archetype may have different names for members than specific types `T` that implement interfaces from the constraint [externally](terminology.md#external-impl). This difference in names can also occur for supertypes in C++, for example members in a derived class can hide members in the base class with the same name, though it is not that common for it to come up in practice. The behavior of calling `AddAndScaleGeneric` with a value of a specific type like `Point` is to set `T` to `Point` after all the names have been qualified. ``` // AddAndScaleGeneric with T = Point fn AddAndScaleForPoint(a: Point, b: Point, s: Double) -> Point { return a.(Vector.Add)(b).(Vector.Scale)(s); } ``` This qualification gives a consistent interpretation to the body of the function even when the type supplied by the caller [implements the interface externally](terminology.md#external-impl), as `Point2` does: ``` // AddAndScaleGeneric with T = Point2 fn AddAndScaleForPoint2(a: Point2, b: Point2, s: Double) -> Point2 { // ✅ This works even though `a.Add(b).Scale(s)` wouldn't. return a.(Vector.Add)(b).(Vector.Scale)(s); } ``` ### Return type From the caller's perspective, the return type is the result of substituting the caller's values for the generic parameters into the return type expression. So `AddAndScaleGeneric` called with `Point` values returns a `Point` and called with `Point2` values returns a `Point2`. So looking up a member on the resulting value will look in `Point` or `Point2` rather than `Vector`. This is part of realizing [the goal that generic functions can be used in place of regular functions without changing the return type that callers see](goals.md#path-from-regular-functions). In this example, `AddAndScaleGeneric` can be substituted for `AddAndScaleForPoint` and `AddAndScaleForPoint2` without affecting the return types. This requires the return value to be converted to the type that the caller expects instead of the erased type used inside the generic function. A generic caller of a generic function performs the same substitution process to determine the return type, but the result may be generic. In this example of calling a generic from another generic, ``` fn DoubleThreeTimes[U:! Vector](a: U) -> U { return AddAndScaleGeneric(a, a, 2.0).Scale(2.0); } ``` the return type of `AddAndScaleGeneric` is found by substituting in the `U` from `DoubleThreeTimes` for the `T` from `AddAndScaleGeneric` in the return type expression of `AddAndScaleGeneric`. `U` is an archetype of `Vector`, and so implements `Vector` internally and therefore has a `Scale` method. If `U` had a more specific type, the return value would have the additional capabilities of `U`. For example, given a parameterized type `GeneralPoint` implementing `Vector`, and a function that takes a `GeneralPoint` and calls `AddAndScaleGeneric` with it: ``` class GeneralPoint(C:! Numeric) { external impl as Vector { ... } fn Get[me: Self](i: i32) -> C; } fn CallWithGeneralPoint[C:! Numeric](p: GeneralPoint(C)) -> C { // `AddAndScaleGeneric` returns `T` and in these calls `T` is // deduced to be `GeneralPoint(C)`. // ❌ Illegal: AddAndScaleGeneric(p, p, 2.0).Scale(2.0); // `GeneralPoint(C)` implements `Vector` externally, and so // does not have a `Scale` method. // ✅ Allowed: `GeneralPoint(C)` has a `Get` method AddAndScaleGeneric(p, p, 2.0).Get(0); // ✅ Allowed: `GeneralPoint(C)` implements `Vector` // externally, and so has a `Vector.Scale` method. // `Vector.Scale` returns `Self` which is `GeneralPoint(C)` // again, and so has a `Get` method. return AddAndScaleGeneric(p, p, 2.0).(Vector.Scale)(2.0).Get(0); } ``` The result of the call to `AddAndScaleGeneric` from `CallWithGeneralPoint` has type `GeneralPoint(C)` and so has a `Get` method and a `Vector.Scale` method. But, in contrast to how `DoubleThreeTimes` works, since `Vector` is implemented externally the return value in this case does not directly have a `Scale` method. ### Implementation model A possible model for generating code for a generic function is to use a [witness table](terminology.md#witness-tables) to represent how a type implements an interface: - [Interfaces](#interfaces) are types of witness tables. - [Impls](#implementing-interfaces) are witness table values. - The compiler rewrites functions with an implicit type argument (`fn Foo[InterfaceName:! T](...)`) to have an actual argument with type determined by the interface, and supplied at the callsite using a value determined by the impl. For the example above, [the Vector interface](#interfaces) could be thought of defining a witness table type like: ``` class Vector { // `Self` is the representation type, which is only // known at compile time. var Self:! Type; // `fnty` is **placeholder** syntax for a "function type", // so `Add` is a function that takes two `Self` parameters // and returns a value of type `Self`. var Add: fnty(a: Self, b: Self) -> Self; var Scale: fnty(a: Self, v: f64) -> Self; } ``` The [impl of Vector for Point](#implementing-interfaces) would be a value of this type: ``` var VectorForPoint: Vector = { .Self = Point, // `lambda` is **placeholder** syntax for defining a // function value. .Add = lambda(a: Point, b: Point) -> Point { return {.x = a.x + b.x, .y = a.y + b.y}; }, .Scale = lambda(a: Point, v: f64) -> Point { return {.x = a.x * v, .y = a.y * v}; }, }; ``` Finally we can define a generic function and call it, like [`AddAndScaleGeneric` from the "Generics" section](#generics) by making the witness table an explicit argument to the function: ``` fn AddAndScaleGeneric (t:! Vector, a: t.Self, b: t.Self, s: f64) -> t.Self { return t.Scale(t.Add(a, b), s); } // Point implements Vector. var v: Point = AddAndScaleGeneric(VectorForPoint, a, w, 2.5); ``` The rule is that generic arguments (declared using `:!`) are passed at compile time, so the actual value of the `t` argument here can be used to generate the code for `AddAndScaleGeneric`. So `AddAndScaleGeneric` is using a [static-dispatch witness table](terminology.md#static-dispatch-witness-table). Note that this implementation strategy only works for impls that the caller knows the callee needs. ## Interfaces recap Interfaces have a name and a definition. The definition of an interface consists of a set of declarations. Each declaration defines a requirement for any `impl` that is in turn a capability that consumers of that `impl` can rely on. Typically those declarations also have names, useful for both saying how the `impl` satisfies the requirement and accessing the capability. Interfaces are ["nominal"](terminology.md#nominal-interfaces), which means their name is significant. So two interfaces with the same body definition but different names are different, just like two classes with the same definition but different names are considered different types. For example, lets say we define another interface, say `LegoFish`, with the same `Add` and `Scale` method signatures. Implementing `Vector` would not imply an implementation of `LegoFish`, because the `impl` definition explicitly refers to the name `Vector`. An interface's name may be used in a few different contexts: - to define [an `impl` for a type](#implementing-interfaces), - as a namespace name in [a qualified name](#qualified-member-names), and - as a [type-of-type](terminology.md#type-of-type) for [a generic type parameter](#generics). While interfaces are examples of type-of-types, type-of-types are a more general concept, for which interfaces are a building block. ## Type-of-types A [type-of-type](terminology.md#type-of-type) consists of a set of requirements and a set of names. Requirements are typically a set of interfaces that a type must satisfy, though other kinds of requirements are added below. The names are aliases for qualified names in those interfaces. An interface is one particularly simple example of a type-of-type. For example, `Vector` as a type-of-type has a set of requirements consisting of the single interface `Vector`. Its set of names consists of `Add` and `Scale` which are aliases for the corresponding qualified names inside `Vector` as a namespace. The requirements determine which types are values of a given type-of-type. The set of names in a type-of-type determines the API of a generic type value and define the result of qualified member name lookup. This general structure of type-of-types holds not just for interfaces, but others described in the rest of this document. ## Named constraints If the interfaces discussed above are the building blocks for type-of-types, [generic named constraints](terminology.md#named-constraints) describe how they may be composed together. Unlike interfaces which are nominal, the name of a named constraint is not a part of its value. Two different named constraints with the same definition are equivalent even if they have different names. This is because types don't explicitly specify which named constraints they implement, types automatically implement any named constraints they can satisfy. A named constraint definition can contain interface requirements using `impl` declarations and names using `alias` declarations. Note that this allows us to declare the aspects of a type-of-type directly. ``` constraint VectorLegoFish { // Interface implementation requirements impl as Vector; impl as LegoFish; // Names alias Scale = Vector.Scale; alias VAdd = Vector.Add; alias LFAdd = LegoFish.Add; } ``` We don't expect developers to directly define many named constraints, but other constructs we do expect them to use will be defined in terms of them. For example, we can define the Carbon builtin `Type` as: ``` constraint Type { } ``` That is, `Type` is the type-of-type with no requirements (so matches every type), and defines no names. ``` fn Identity[T:! Type](x: T) -> T { // Can accept values of any type. But, since we know nothing about the // type, we don't know about any operations on `x` inside this function. return x; } var i: i32 = Identity(3); var s: String = Identity("string"); ``` **Aside:** We can define `auto` as syntactic sugar for `(template _:! Type)`. This definition allows you to use `auto` as the type for a local variable whose type can be statically determined by the compiler. It also allows you to use `auto` as the type of a function parameter, to mean "accepts a value of any type, and this function will be instantiated separately for every different type." This is consistent with the [use of `auto` in the C++20 Abbreviated function template feature](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/function_template#Abbreviated_function_template). In general, the declarations in `constraint` definition match a subset of the declarations in an `interface`. Named constraints used with generics, as opposed to templates, should only include required interfaces and aliases to named members of those interfaces. To declare a named constraint that includes other declarations for use with template parameters, use the `template` keyword before `constraint`. Method, associated type, and associated function requirements may only be declared inside a `template constraint`. Note that a generic constraint ignores the unqualified member names defined for a type, but a template constraint can depend on them. There is an analogy between declarations used in a `constraint` and in an `interface` definition. If an `interface` `I` has (non-`alias`) declarations `X`, `Y`, and `Z`, like so: ``` interface I { X; Y; Z; } ``` Then a type implementing `I` would have `impl as I` with definitions for `X`, `Y`, and `Z`, as in: ``` class ImplementsI { // ... impl as I { X { ... } Y { ... } Z { ... } } } ``` But the corresponding `constraint` or `template constraint`, `S`: ``` // or template constraint S { constraint S { X; Y; Z; } ``` would match any type with definitions for `X`, `Y`, and `Z` directly: ``` class ImplementsS { // ... X { ... } Y { ... } Z { ... } } ``` **TODO:** Move the `template constraint` and `auto` content to the template design document, once it exists. ### Subtyping between type-of-types There is a subtyping relationship between type-of-types that allows calls of one generic function from another as long as it has a subset of the requirements. Given a generic type variable `T` with type-of-type `I1`, it satisfies a type-of-type `I2` as long as the requirements of `I1` are a superset of the requirements of `I2`. This means a value `x` of type `T` may be passed to functions requiring types to satisfy `I2`, as in this example: ``` interface Printable { fn Print[me: Self](); } interface Renderable { fn Draw[me: Self](); } constraint PrintAndRender { impl as Printable; impl as Renderable; } constraint JustPrint { impl as Printable; } fn PrintIt[T2:! JustPrint](x2: T2) { x2.(Printable.Print)(); } fn PrintDrawPrint[T1:! PrintAndRender](x1: T1) { // x1 implements `Printable` and `Renderable`. x1.(Printable.Print)(); x1.(Renderable.Draw)(); // Can call `PrintIt` since `T1` satisfies `JustPrint` since // it implements `Printable` (in addition to `Renderable`). PrintIt(x1); } ``` ## Combining interfaces by anding type-of-types In order to support functions that require more than one interface to be implemented, we provide a combination operator on type-of-types, written `&`. This operator gives the type-of-type with the union of all the requirements and the union of the names minus any conflicts. ``` interface Printable { fn Print[me: Self](); } interface Renderable { fn Center[me: Self]() -> (i32, i32); fn Draw[me: Self](); } // `Printable & Renderable` is syntactic sugar for this type-of-type: constraint { impl as Printable; impl as Renderable; alias Print = Printable.Print; alias Center = Renderable.Center; alias Draw = Renderable.Draw; } fn PrintThenDraw[T:! Printable & Renderable](x: T) { // Can use methods of `Printable` or `Renderable` on `x` here. x.Print(); // Same as `x.(Printable.Print)();`. x.Draw(); // Same as `x.(Renderable.Draw)();`. } class Sprite { // ... impl as Printable { fn Print[me: Self]() { ... } } impl as Renderable { fn Center[me: Self]() -> (i32, i32) { ... } fn Draw[me: Self]() { ... } } } var s: Sprite = ...; PrintThenDraw(s); ``` Any conflicting names between the two types are replaced with a name that is an error to use. ``` interface Renderable { fn Center[me: Self]() -> (i32, i32); fn Draw[me: Self](); } interface EndOfGame { fn Draw[me: Self](); fn Winner[me: Self](player: i32); } // `Renderable & EndOfGame` is syntactic sugar for this type-of-type: constraint { impl as Renderable; impl as EndOfGame; alias Center = Renderable.Center; // Open question: `forbidden`, `invalid`, or something else? forbidden Draw message "Ambiguous, use either `(Renderable.Draw)` or `(EndOfGame.Draw)`."; alias Winner = EndOfGame.Winner; } ``` Conflicts can be resolved at the call site using [the qualified name syntax](#qualified-member-names), or by defining a named constraint explicitly and renaming the methods: ``` constraint RenderableAndEndOfGame { impl as Renderable; impl as EndOfGame; alias Center = Renderable.Center; alias RenderableDraw = Renderable.Draw; alias TieGame = EndOfGame.Draw; alias Winner = EndOfGame.Winner; } fn RenderTieGame[T:! RenderableAndEndOfGame](x: T) { // Calls Renderable.Draw() x.RenderableDraw(); // Calls EndOfGame.Draw() x.TieGame(); } ``` Reserving the name when there is a conflict is part of resolving what happens when you combine more than two type-of-types. If `x` is forbidden in `A`, it is forbidden in `A & B`, whether or not `B` defines the name `x`. This makes `&` associative and commutative, and so it is well defined on sets of interfaces, or other type-of-types, independent of order. Note that we do _not_ consider two type-of-types using the same name to mean the same thing to be a conflict. For example, combining a type-of-type with itself gives itself, `MyTypeOfType & MyTypeOfType == MyTypeOfType`. Also, given two [interface extensions](#interface-extension) of a common base interface, the sum should not conflict on any names in the common base. **Rejected alternative:** Instead of using `&` as the combining operator, we considered using `+`, [like Rust](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/0087-trait-bounds-with-plus.html). See [#531](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/issues/531) for the discussion. **Future work:** We may want to define another operator on type-of-types for adding requirements to a type-of-type without affecting the names, and so avoid the possibility of name conflicts. Note this means the operation is not commutative. If we call this operator `[&]`, then `A [&] B` has the names of `A` and `B [&] A` has the names of `B`. ``` // `Printable [&] Renderable` is syntactic sugar for this type-of-type: constraint { impl as Printable; impl as Renderable; alias Print = Printable.Print; } // `Renderable [&] EndOfGame` is syntactic sugar for this type-of-type: constraint { impl as Renderable; impl as EndOfGame; alias Center = Renderable.Center; alias Draw = Renderable.Draw; } ``` Note that all three expressions `A & B`, `A [&] B`, and `B [&] A` have the same requirements, and so you would be able to switch a function declaration between them without affecting callers. Nothing in this design depends on the `[&]` operator, and having both `&` and `[&]` might be confusing for users, so it makes sense to postpone implementing `[&]` until we have a demonstrated need. The `[&]` operator seems most useful for adding requirements for interfaces used for [operator overloading](#operator-overloading), where merely implementing the interface is enough to be able to use the operator to access the functionality. **Alternatives considered:** See [Carbon: Access to interface methods](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u_i_s31OMI_apPur7WmVxcYq6MUXsG3oCiKwH893GRI/edit?usp=sharing&resourcekey=0-0lzSNebBMtUBi4lStL825g). **Comparison with other languages:** This `&` operation on interfaces works very similarly to Rust's `+` operation, with the main difference being how you [qualify names when there is a conflict](https://doc.rust-lang.org/rust-by-example/trait/disambiguating.html). ## Interface requiring other interfaces Some interfaces will depend on other interfaces being implemented for the same type. For example, in C++, [the `Container` concept](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/named_req/Container#Other_requirements) requires all containers to also satisfy the requirements of `DefaultConstructible`, `CopyConstructible`, `EqualityComparable`, and `Swappable`. This is already a capability for [type-of-types in general](#type-of-types). For consistency we will use the same semantics and syntax as we do for [named constraints](#named-constraints): ``` interface Equatable { fn Equals[me: Self](rhs: Self) -> bool; } interface Iterable { fn Advance[addr me: Self*]() -> bool; impl as Equatable; } def DoAdvanceAndEquals[T:! Iterable](x: T) { // `x` has type `T` that implements `Iterable`, and so has `Advance`. x.Advance(); // `Iterable` requires an implementation of `Equatable`, // so `T` also implements `Equatable`. x.(Equatable.Equals)(x); } class Iota { impl as Iterable { fn Advance[me: Self]() { ... } } impl as Equatable { fn Equals[me: Self](rhs: Self) -> bool { ... } } } var x: Iota; DoAdvanceAndEquals(x); ``` Like with named constraints, an interface implementation requirement doesn't by itself add any names to the interface, but again those can be added with `alias` declarations: ``` interface Hashable { fn Hash[me: Self]() -> u64; impl as Equatable; alias Equals = Equatable.Equals; } def DoHashAndEquals[T:! Hashable](x: T) { // Now both `Hash` and `Equals` are available directly: x.Hash(); x.Equals(x); } ``` **Comparison with other languages:** [This feature is called "Supertraits" in Rust](https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch19-03-advanced-traits.html#using-supertraits-to-require-one-traits-functionality-within-another-trait). ### Interface extension When implementing an interface, we should allow implementing the aliased names as well. In the case of `Hashable` above, this includes all the members of `Equatable`, obviating the need to implement `Equatable` itself: ``` class Song { impl as Hashable { fn Hash[me: Self]() -> u64 { ... } fn Equals[me: Self](rhs: Self) -> bool { ... } } } var y: Song; DoHashAndEquals(y); ``` This allows us to say that `Hashable` ["extends"](terminology.md#extending-an-interface) `Equatable`, with some benefits: - This allows `Equatable` to be an implementation detail of `Hashable`. - This allows types implementing `Hashable` to implement all of its API in one place. - This reduces the boilerplate for types implementing `Hashable`. We expect this concept to be common enough to warrant dedicated syntax: ``` interface Equatable { fn Equals[me: Self](rhs: Self) -> bool; } interface Hashable { extends Equatable; fn Hash[me: Self]() -> u64; } // is equivalent to the definition of Hashable from before: // interface Hashable { // impl as Equatable; // alias Equals = Equatable.Equals; // fn Hash[me: Self]() -> u64; // } ``` No names in `Hashable` are allowed to conflict with names in `Equatable` (unless those names are marked as `upcoming` or `deprecated` as in [evolution future work](#evolution)). Hopefully this won't be a problem in practice, since interface extension is a very closely coupled relationship, but this may be something we will have to revisit in the future. Examples: - The C++ [Boost.Graph library](https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_74_0/libs/graph/doc/) [graph concepts](https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_74_0/libs/graph/doc/graph_concepts.html#fig:graph-concepts) has many refining relationships between concepts. [Carbon generics use case: graph library](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xk0GLtpBl2OOnf3F_6Z-A3DtTt-r7wdOZ5wPipYUSO0/edit?usp=sharing&resourcekey=0-mBSmwn6b6jwbLaQw2WG6OA) shows how those concepts might be translated into Carbon interfaces. - The [C++ concepts](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/named_req) for containers, iterators, and concurrency include many requirement relationships. - Swift protocols, such as [Collection](https://developer.apple.com/documentation/swift/collection). To write an interface extending multiple interfaces, use multiple `extends` declarations. For example, the [`BinaryInteger` protocol in Swift](https://developer.apple.com/documentation/swift/binaryinteger) inherits from `CustomStringConvertible`, `Hashable`, `Numeric`, and `Stridable`. The [`SetAlgeba` protocol](https://swiftdoc.org/v5.1/protocol/setalgebra/) extends `Equatable` and `ExpressibleByArrayLiteral`, which would be declared in Carbon: ``` interface SetAlgebra { extends Equatable; extends ExpressibleByArrayLiteral; } ``` **Alternative considered:** The `extends` declarations are in the body of the `interface` definition instead of the header so we can use [associated types (defined below)](#associated-types) also defined in the body in parameters or constraints of the interface being extended. ``` // A type can implement `ConvertibleTo` many times, using // different values of `T`. interface ConvertibleTo(T:! Type) { ... } // A type can only implement `PreferredConversion` once. interface PreferredConversion { let AssociatedType:! Type; extends ConvertibleTo(AssociatedType); } ``` #### `extends` and `impl` with named constraints The `extends` declaration makes sense with the same meaning inside a [`constraint`](#named-constraints) definition, and so is also supported. ``` interface Media { fn Play[me: Self](); } interface Job { fn Run[me: Self](); } constraint Combined { extends Media; extends Job; } ``` This definition of `Combined` is equivalent to requiring both the `Media` and `Job` interfaces being implemented, and aliases their methods. ``` // Equivalent constraint Combined { impl as Media; alias Play = Media.Play; impl as Job; alias Run = Job.Run; } ``` Notice how `Combined` has aliases for all the methods in the interfaces it requires. That condition is sufficient to allow a type to `impl` the named constraint: ``` class Song { impl as Combined { fn Play[me: Self]() { ... } fn Run[me: Self]() { ... } } } ``` This is equivalent to implementing the required interfaces directly: ``` class Song { impl as Media { fn Play[me: Self]() { ... } } impl as Job { fn Run[me: Self]() { ... } } } ``` This is just like when you get an implementation of `Equatable` by implementing `Hashable` when `Hashable` extends `Equatable`. This provides a tool useful for [evolution](#evolution). Conversely, an `interface` can extend a `constraint`: ``` interface MovieCodec { extends Combined; fn Load[addr me: Self*](filename: String); } ``` This gives `MovieCodec` the same requirements and names as `Combined`, and so is equivalent to: ``` interface MovieCodec { impl as Media; alias Play = Media.Play; impl as Job; alias Run = Job.Run; fn Load[addr me: Self*](filename: String); } ``` #### Diamond dependency issue Consider this set of interfaces, simplified from [this example generic graph library doc](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xk0GLtpBl2OOnf3F_6Z-A3DtTt-r7wdOZ5wPipYUSO0/edit?resourcekey=0-mBSmwn6b6jwbLaQw2WG6OA#): ``` interface Graph { fn Source[addr me: Self*](e: EdgeDescriptor) -> VertexDescriptor; fn Target[addr me: Self*](e: EdgeDescriptor) -> VertexDescriptor; } interface IncidenceGraph { extends Graph; fn OutEdges[addr me: Self*](u: VertexDescriptor) -> (EdgeIterator, EdgeIterator); } interface EdgeListGraph { extends Graph; fn Edges[addr me: Self*]() -> (EdgeIterator, EdgeIterator); } ``` We need to specify what happens when a graph type implements both `IncidenceGraph` and `EdgeListGraph`, since both interfaces extend the `Graph` interface. ``` class MyEdgeListIncidenceGraph { impl as IncidenceGraph { ... } impl as EdgeListGraph { ... } } ``` The rule is that we need one definition of each method of `Graph`. Each method though could be defined in the `impl` block of `IncidenceGraph`, `EdgeListGraph`, or `Graph`. These would all be valid: - `IncidenceGraph` implements all methods of `Graph`, `EdgeListGraph` implements none of them. ``` class MyEdgeListIncidenceGraph { impl as IncidenceGraph { fn Source[me: Self](e: EdgeDescriptor) -> VertexDescriptor { ... } fn Target[me: Self](e: EdgeDescriptor) -> VertexDescriptor { ... } fn OutEdges[addr me: Self*](u: VertexDescriptor) -> (EdgeIterator, EdgeIterator) { ... } } impl as EdgeListGraph { fn Edges[addr me: Self*]() -> (EdgeIterator, EdgeIterator) { ... } } } ``` - `IncidenceGraph` and `EdgeListGraph` implement all methods of `Graph` between them, but with no overlap. ``` class MyEdgeListIncidenceGraph { impl as IncidenceGraph { fn Source[me: Self](e: EdgeDescriptor) -> VertexDescriptor { ... } fn OutEdges[addr me: Self*](u: VertexDescriptor) -> (EdgeIterator, EdgeIterator) { ... } } impl as EdgeListGraph { fn Target[me: Self](e: EdgeDescriptor) -> VertexDescriptor { ... } fn Edges[addr me: Self*]() -> (EdgeIterator, EdgeIterator) { ... } } } ``` - Explicitly implementing `Graph`. ``` class MyEdgeListIncidenceGraph { impl as Graph { fn Source[me: Self](e: EdgeDescriptor) -> VertexDescriptor { ... } fn Target[me: Self](e: EdgeDescriptor) -> VertexDescriptor { ... } } impl as IncidenceGraph { ... } impl as EdgeListGraph { ... } } ``` - Implementing `Graph` externally. ``` class MyEdgeListIncidenceGraph { impl as IncidenceGraph { ... } impl as EdgeListGraph { ... } } external impl MyEdgeListIncidenceGraph as Graph { fn Source[me: Self](e: EdgeDescriptor) -> VertexDescriptor { ... } fn Target[me: Self](e: EdgeDescriptor) -> VertexDescriptor { ... } } ``` This last point means that there are situations where we can only detect a missing method definition by the end of the file. This doesn't delay other aspects of semantic checking, which will just assume that these methods will eventually be provided. **Open question:** We could require that the `external impl` of the required interface be declared lexically in the class scope in this case. That would allow earlier detection of missing definitions. ### Use case: overload resolution Implementing an extended interface is an example of a more specific match for [lookup resolution](#lookup-resolution-and-specialization). For example, this could be used to provide different implementations of an algorithm depending on the capabilities of the iterator being passed in: ``` interface ForwardIntIterator { fn Advance[addr me: Self*](); fn Get[me: Self]() -> i32; } interface BidirectionalIntIterator { extends ForwardIntIterator; fn Back[addr me: Self*](); } interface RandomAccessIntIterator { extends BidirectionalIntIterator; fn Skip[addr me: Self*](offset: i32); fn Difference[me: Self](rhs: Self) -> i32; } fn SearchInSortedList[IterT:! ForwardIntIterator] (begin: IterT, end: IterT, needle: i32) -> bool { ... // does linear search } // Will prefer the following overload when it matches // since it is more specific. fn SearchInSortedList[IterT:! RandomAccessIntIterator] (begin: IterT, end: IterT, needle: i32) -> bool { ... // does binary search } ``` This would be an example of the more general rule that an interface `A` requiring an implementation of interface `B` means `A` is more specific than `B`. ## Adapting types Since interfaces may only be implemented for a type once, and we limit where implementations may be added to a type, there is a need to allow the user to switch the type of a value to access different interface implementations. Carbon therefore provides a way to create new types [compatible with](terminology.md#compatible-types) existing types with different APIs, in particular with different interface implementations, by [adapting](terminology.md#adapting-a-type) them: ``` interface Printable { fn Print[me: Self](); } interface Comparable { fn Less[me: Self](rhs: Self) -> bool; } class Song { impl as Printable { fn Print[me: Self]() { ... } } } adapter SongByTitle for Song { impl as Comparable { fn Less[me: Self](rhs: Self) -> bool { ... } } } adapter FormattedSong for Song { impl as Printable { fn Print[me: Self]() { ... } } } adapter FormattedSongByTitle for Song { impl as Printable = FormattedSong; impl as Comparable = SongByTitle; } ``` This allows developers to provide implementations of new interfaces (as in `SongByTitle`), provide different implementations of the same interface (as in `FormattedSong`), or mix and match implementations from other compatible types (as in `FormattedSongByTitle`). The rules are: - You can add any declaration that you could add to a class except for declarations that would change the representation of the type. This means you can add methods, functions, interface implementations, and aliases, but not fields, base classes, or virtual functions. - The adapted type is compatible with the original type, and that relationship is an equivalence class, so all of `Song`, `SongByTitle`, `FormattedSong`, and `FormattedSongByTitle` end up compatible with each other. - Since adapted types are compatible with the original type, you may explicitly cast between them, but there is no implicit conversion between these types. Inside an adapter, the `Self` type matches the adapter. Members of the original type may be accessed either by a cast: ``` adapter SongByTitle for Song { impl as Comparable { fn Less[me: Self](rhs: Self) -> bool { return (me as Song).Title() < (rhs as Song).Title(); } } } ``` or using qualified names: ``` adapter SongByTitle for Song { impl as Comparable { fn Less[me: Self](rhs: Self) -> bool { return me.(Song.Title)() < rhs.(Song.Title)(); } } } ``` **Comparison with other languages:** This matches the Rust idiom called "newtype", which is used to implement traits on types while avoiding coherence problems, see [here](https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch19-03-advanced-traits.html#using-the-newtype-pattern-to-implement-external-traits-on-external-types) and [here](https://github.com/Ixrec/rust-orphan-rules#user-content-why-are-the-orphan-rules-controversial). Rust's mechanism doesn't directly support reusing implementations, though some of that is provided by macros defined in libraries. Haskell has a [`newtype` feature](https://wiki.haskell.org/Newtype) as well. Haskell's feature doesn't directly support reusing implementations either, but the most popular compiler provides it as [an extension](https://ghc.gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/doc/users_guide/exts/newtype_deriving.html). ### Adapter compatibility Consider a type with a generic type parameter, like a hash map: ``` interface Hashable { ... } class HashMap(KeyT:! Hashable, ValueT:! Type) { fn Find[me:Self](key: KeyT) -> Optional(ValueT); // ... } ``` A user of this type will provide specific values for the key and value types: ``` class Song { impl as Hashable { ... } // ... } var play_count: HashMap(Song, i32) = ...; var thriller_count: Optional(i32) = play_count.Find(Song("Thriller")); ``` Since the `Find` function is generic, it can only use the capabilities that `HashMap` requires of `KeyT` and `ValueT`. This allows us to evaluate when we can convert between two different arguments to a parameterized type. Consider two adapters of `Song` that implement `Hashable`: ``` adapter PlayableSong for Song { impl as Hashable = Song; impl as Media { ... } } adapter SongHashedByTitle for Song { impl as Hashable { ... } } ``` `Song` and `PlayableSong` have the same implementation of `Hashable` in addition to using the same data representation. This means that it is safe to convert between `HashMap(Song, i32)` and `HashMap(PlayableSong, i32)`, because the implementation of all the methods will use the same implementation of the `Hashable` interface. Carbon permits this conversion with an explicit cast. On the other hand, `SongHashedByTitle` has a different implementation of `Hashable` than `Song`. So even though `Song` and `SongHashedByTitle` are compatible types, `HashMap(Song, i32)` and `HashMap(SongHashedByTitle, i32)` are incompatible. This is important because we know that in practice the invariants of a `HashMap` implementation rely on the hashing function staying the same. ### Extending adapter Frequently we expect that the adapter type will want to preserve most or all of the API of the original type. The two most common cases expected are adding and replacing an interface implementation. Users would indicate that an adapter starts from the original type's existing API by using the `extends` keyword instead of `for`: ``` class Song { impl as Hashable { ... } impl as Printable { ... } } adapter SongByArtist extends Song { // Add an implementation of a new interface impl as Comparable { ... } // Replace an existing implementation of an interface // with an alternative. impl as Hashable { ... } } ``` The resulting type `SongByArtist` would: - implement `Comparable`, unlike `Song`, - implement `Hashable`, but differently than `Song`, and - implement `Printable`, inherited from `Song`. Unlike the similar `class B extends A` notation, `adapter B extends A` is permitted even if `A` is a final class. Also, there is no implicit conversion from `B` to `A`, matching `adapter`...`for` but unlike class extension. To avoid or resolve name conflicts between interfaces, an `impl` may be declared [`external`](#external-impl). The names in that interface may then be pulled in individually or renamed using `alias` declarations. ``` adapter SongRenderToPrintDriver extends Song { // Add a new `Print()` member function. fn Print[me: Self]() { ... } // Avoid name conflict with new `Print` function by making // the implementation of the `Printable` interface external. external impl as Printable = Song; // Make the `Print` function from `Printable` available // under the name `PrintToScreen`. alias PrintToScreen = Printable.Print; } ``` ### Use case: Using independent libraries together Imagine we have two packages that are developed independently. Package `CompareLib` defines an interface `CompareLib.Comparable` and a generic algorithm `CompareLib.Sort` that operates on types that implement `CompareLib.Comparable`. Package `SongLib` defines a type `SongLib.Song`. Neither has a dependency on the other, so neither package defines an implementation for `CompareLib.Comparable` for type `SongLib.Song`. A user that wants to pass a value of type `SongLib.Song` to `CompareLib.Sort` has to define an adapter that provides an implementation of `CompareLib.Comparable` for `SongLib.Song`. This adapter will probably use the [`extends` facility of adapters](#extending-adapter) to preserve the `SongLib.Song` API. ``` import CompareLib; import SongLib; adapter Song extends SongLib.Song { impl as CompareLib.Comparable { ... } } // Or, to keep the names from CompareLib.Comparable out of Song's API: adapter Song extends SongLib.Song { } external impl Song as CompareLib.Comparable { ... } // Or, equivalently: adapter Song extends SongLib.Song { external impl as CompareLib.Comparable { ... } } ``` The caller can either convert `SongLib.Song` values to `Song` when calling `CompareLib.Sort` or just start with `Song` values in the first place. ``` var lib_song: SongLib.Song = ...; CompareLib.Sort((lib_song as Song,)); var song: Song = ...; CompareLib.Sort((song,)); ``` ### Use case: Defining an impl for use by other types Let's say we want to provide a possible implementation of an interface for use by types for which that implementation would be appropriate. We can do that by defining an adapter implementing the interface that is parameterized on the type it is adapting. That impl may then be pulled in using the `impl as ... = ...;` syntax. For example, given an interface `Comparable` for deciding which value is smaller: ``` interface Comparable { fn Less[me: Self](rhs: Self) -> bool; } ``` We might define an adapter that implements `Comparable` for types that define another interface `Difference`: ``` interface Difference { fn Sub[me:Self](rhs: Self) -> i32; } adapter ComparableFromDifference(T:! Difference) for T { impl as Comparable { fn Less[me: Self](rhs: Self) -> bool { return (me as T).Sub(rhs) < 0; } } } class IntWrapper { var x: i32; impl as Difference { fn Sub[me: Self](rhs: Self) -> i32 { return left.x - right.x; } } impl as Comparable = ComparableFromDifferenceFn(IntWrapper); } ``` **TODO:** If we support function types, we could potentially pass a function to use to the adapter instead: ``` adapter ComparableFromDifferenceFn (T:! Type, Difference:! fnty(T, T)->i32) for T { impl as Comparable { fn Less[me: Self](rhs: Self) -> bool { return Difference(me, rhs) < 0; } } } class IntWrapper { var x: i32; fn Difference(left: Self, right: Self) { return left.x - right.x; } impl as Comparable = ComparableFromDifferenceFn(IntWrapper, Difference); } ``` ### Use case: Private impl Adapter types can be used when a library publicly exposes a type, but only wants to say that type implements an interface as a private detail internal to the implementation of the type. In that case, instead of implementing the interface for the public type, the library can create a private adapter for that type and implement the interface on that instead. Any member of the class can cast its `me` parameter to the adapter type when it wants to make use of the private impl. ``` // Public, in API file class Complex64 { // ... fn CloserToOrigin[me: Self](them: Self) -> bool; } // Private adapter ByReal extends Complex64 { // Complex numbers are not generally comparable, // but this comparison function is useful for some // method implementations. impl as Comparable { fn Less[me: Self](that: Self) -> bool { return me.Real() < that.Real(); } } } fn Complex64.CloserToOrigin[me: Self](them: Self) -> bool { var me_mag: ByReal = me * me.Conj() as ByReal; var them_mag: ByReal = them * them.Conj() as ByReal; return me_mag.Less(them_mag); } ``` ### Use case: Accessing external names Consider a case where a function will call several functions from an interface that is [implemented externally](terminology.md#external-impl) for a type. ``` interface DrawingContext { fn SetPen[me: Self](...); fn SetFill[me: Self](...); fn DrawRectangle[me: Self](...); fn DrawLine[me: Self](...); ... } external impl Window as DrawingContext { ... } ``` An adapter can make that much more convenient by making a compatible type where the interface is [implemented internally](terminology.md#internal-impl). This avoids having to [qualify](terminology.md#qualified-and-unqualified-member-names) each call to methods in the interface. ``` adapter DrawInWindow for Window { impl as DrawingContext = Window; } fn Render(w: Window) { let d: DrawInWindow = w as DrawInWindow; d.SetPen(...); d.SetFill(...); d.DrawRectangle(...); ... } ``` ### Adapter with stricter invariants **Future work:** Rust also uses the newtype idiom to create types with additional invariants or other information encoded in the type ([1](https://doc.rust-lang.org/rust-by-example/generics/new_types.html), [2](https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch19-04-advanced-types.html#using-the-newtype-pattern-for-type-safety-and-abstraction), [3](https://www.worthe-it.co.za/blog/2020-10-31-newtype-pattern-in-rust.html)). This is used to record in the type system that some data has passed validation checks, like `ValidDate` with the same data layout as `Date`. Or to record the units associated with a value, such as `Seconds` versus `Milliseconds` or `Feet` versus `Meters`. We should have some way of restricting the casts between a type and an adapter to address this use case. ## Associated constants In addition to associated methods, we allow other kinds of [associated entities](terminology.md#associated-entity). For consistency, we use the same syntax to describe a constant in an interface as in a type without assigning a value. As constants, they are declared using the `let` introducer. For example, a fixed-dimensional point type could have the dimension as an associated constant. ``` interface NSpacePoint { let N:! i32; // The following require: 0 <= i < N. fn Get[addr me: Self*](i: i32) -> f64; fn Set[addr me: Self*](i: i32, value: f64); // Associated constants may be used in signatures: fn SetAll[addr me: Self*](value: Array(f64, N)); } ``` An implementation of an interface specifies values for associated constants with a [`where` clause](#where-constraints). For example, implementations of `NSpacePoint` for different types might have different values for `N`: ``` class Point2D { impl as NSpacePoint where .N = 2 { fn Get[addr me: Self*](i: i32) -> f64 { ... } fn Set[addr me: Self*](i: i32, value: f64) { ... } fn SetAll[addr me: Self*](value: Array(f64, 2)) { ... } } } class Point3D { impl as NSpacePoint where .N = 3 { fn Get[addr me: Self*](i: i32) -> f64 { ... } fn Set[addr me: Self*](i: i32, value: f64) { ... } fn SetAll[addr me: Self*](value: Array(f64, 3)) { ... } } } ``` Multiple assignments to associated constants may be joined using the `and` keyword. The list of assignments is subject to two restrictions: - An implementation of an interface cannot specify a value for a [`final`](#final-members) associated constant. - If an associated constant doesn't have a [default value](#interface-defaults), every implementation must specify its value. These values may be accessed as members of the type: ``` Assert(Point2D.N == 2); Assert(Point3D.N == 3); fn PrintPoint[PointT:! NSpacePoint](p: PointT) { for (var i: i32 = 0; i < PointT.N; ++i) { if (i > 0) { Print(", "); } Print(p.Get(i)); } } fn ExtractPoint[PointT:! NSpacePoint]( p: PointT, dest: Array(f64, PointT.N)*) { for (var i: i32 = 0; i < PointT.N; ++i) { (*dest)[i] = p.Get(i); } } ``` **Comparison with other languages:** This feature is also called [associated constants in Rust](https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/items/associated-items.html#associated-constants). **Aside:** In general, the use of `:!` here means these `let` declarations will only have compile-time and not runtime storage associated with them. ### Associated class functions To be consistent with normal [class function](/docs/design/classes.md#class-functions) declaration syntax, associated class functions are written using a `fn` declaration: ``` interface DeserializeFromString { fn Deserialize(serialized: String) -> Self; } class MySerializableType { var i: i32; impl as DeserializeFromString { fn Deserialize(serialized: String) -> Self { return (.i = StringToInt(serialized)); } } } var x: MySerializableType = MySerializableType.Deserialize("3"); fn Deserialize(T:! DeserializeFromString, serialized: String) -> T { return T.Deserialize(serialized); } var y: MySerializableType = Deserialize(MySerializableType, "4"); ``` This is instead of declaring an associated constant using `let` with a function type. Together associated methods and associated class functions are called _associated functions_, much like together methods and class functions are called [member functions](/docs/design/classes.md#member-functions). ## Associated types Associated types are [associated entities](terminology.md#associated-entity) that happen to be types. These are particularly interesting since they can be used in the signatures of associated methods or functions, to allow the signatures of methods to vary from implementation to implementation. We already have one example of this: the `Self` type discussed [in the "Interfaces" section](#interfaces). For other cases, we can say that the interface declares that each implementation will provide a type under a specific name. For example: ``` interface StackAssociatedType { let ElementType:! Type; fn Push[addr me: Self*](value: ElementType); fn Pop[addr me: Self*]() -> ElementType; fn IsEmpty[addr me: Self*]() -> bool; } ``` Here we have an interface called `StackAssociatedType` which defines two methods, `Push` and `Pop`. The signatures of those two methods declare them as accepting or returning values with the type `ElementType`, which any implementer of `StackAssociatedType` must also define. For example, maybe `DynamicArray` implements `StackAssociatedType`: ``` class DynamicArray(T:! Type) { class IteratorType { ... } fn Begin[addr me: Self*]() -> IteratorType; fn End[addr me: Self*]() -> IteratorType; fn Insert[addr me: Self*](pos: IteratorType, value: T); fn Remove[addr me: Self*](pos: IteratorType); // Set the associated type `ElementType` to `T`. impl as StackAssociatedType where .ElementType = T { fn Push[addr me: Self*](value: ElementType) { me->Insert(me->End(), value); } fn Pop[addr me: Self*]() -> ElementType { var pos: IteratorType = me->End(); Assert(pos != me->Begin()); --pos; returned var ret: ElementType = *pos; me->Remove(pos); return var; } fn IsEmpty[addr me: Self*]() -> bool { return me->Begin() == me->End(); } } } ``` **Alternatives considered:** See [other syntax options considered in #731 for specifying associated types](/proposals/p0731.md#syntax-for-associated-constants). In particular, it was deemed that [Swift's approach of inferring the associated type from method signatures in the impl](https://docs.swift.org/swift-book/LanguageGuide/Generics.html#ID190) was unneeded complexity. The definition of the `StackAssociatedType` is sufficient for writing a generic function that operates on anything implementing that interface, for example: ``` fn PeekAtTopOfStack[StackType:! StackAssociatedType](s: StackType*) -> StackType.ElementType { var top: StackType.ElementType = s->Pop(); s->Push(top); return top; } ``` Inside the generic function `PeekAtTopOfStack`, the `ElementType` associated type member of `StackType` is erased. This means `StackType.ElementType` has the API dictated by the declaration of `ElementType` in the interface `StackAssociatedType`. Outside the generic, associated types have the concrete type values determined by impl lookup, rather than the erased version of that type used inside a generic. ``` var my_array: DynamicArray(i32) = (1, 2, 3); // PeekAtTopOfStack's `StackType` is set to `DynamicArray(i32)` // with `StackType.ElementType` set to `i32`. Assert(PeekAtTopOfStack(my_array) == 3); ``` This is another part of achieving [the goal that generic functions can be used in place of regular functions without changing the return type that callers see](goals.md#path-from-regular-functions) discussed in the [return type section](#return-type). Associated types can also be implemented using a [member type](/docs/design/classes.md#member-type). ``` interface Container { let IteratorType:! Iterator; ... } class DynamicArray(T:! Type) { ... impl as Container { class IteratorType { impl Iterator { ... } } ... } } ``` For context, see ["Interface type parameters and associated types" in the generics terminology document](terminology.md#interface-type-parameters-and-associated-types). **Comparison with other languages:** Both [Rust](https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch19-03-advanced-traits.html#specifying-placeholder-types-in-trait-definitions-with-associated-types) and [Swift](https://docs.swift.org/swift-book/LanguageGuide/Generics.html#ID189) support associated types. ### Implementation model The associated type can be modeled by a witness table field in the interface's witness table. ``` interface Iterator { fn Advance[addr me: Self*](); } interface Container { let IteratorType:! Iterator; fn Begin[addr me: Self*]() -> IteratorType; } ``` is represented by: ``` class Iterator(Self:! Type) { var Advance: fnty(this: Self*); ... } class Container(Self:! Type) { // Representation type for the iterator. let IteratorType:! Type; // Witness that IteratorType implements Iterator. var iterator_impl: Iterator(IteratorType)*; // Method var Begin: fnty (this: Self*) -> IteratorType; ... } ``` ## Parameterized interfaces Associated types don't change the fact that a type can only implement an interface at most once. If instead you want a family of related interfaces, one per possible value of a type parameter, multiple of which could be implemented for a single type, you would use [parameterized interfaces](terminology.md#interface-type-parameters-and-associated-types). To write a parameterized version of the stack interface, instead of using associated types, write a parameter list after the name of the interface instead of the associated type declaration: ``` interface StackParameterized(ElementType:! Type) { fn Push[addr me: Self*](value: ElementType); fn Pop[addr me: Self*]() -> ElementType; fn IsEmpty[addr me: Self*]() -> bool; } ``` Then `StackParameterized(Fruit)` and `StackParameterized(Veggie)` would be considered different interfaces, with distinct implementations. ``` class Produce { var fruit: DynamicArray(Fruit); var veggie: DynamicArray(Veggie); impl as StackParameterized(Fruit) { fn Push[addr me: Self*](value: Fruit) { me->fruit.Push(value); } fn Pop[addr me: Self*]() -> Fruit { return me->fruit.Pop(); } fn IsEmpty[addr me: Self*]() -> bool { return me->fruit.IsEmpty(); } } impl as StackParameterized(Veggie) { fn Push[addr me: Self*](value: Veggie) { me->veggie.Push(value); } fn Pop[addr me: Self*]() -> Veggie { return me->veggie.Pop(); } fn IsEmpty[addr me: Self*]() -> bool { return me->veggie.IsEmpty(); } } } ``` Unlike associated types in interfaces and parameters to types, interface parameters can't be deduced. For example, if we were to rewrite [the `PeekAtTopOfStack` example in the "associated types" section](#associated-types) for `StackParameterized(T)` it would generate a compile error: ``` // ❌ Error: can't deduce interface parameter `T`. fn BrokenPeekAtTopOfStackParameterized [T:! Type, StackType:! StackParameterized(T)] (s: StackType*) -> T { ... } ``` This error is because the compiler can not determine if `T` should be `Fruit` or `Veggie` when passing in argument of type `Produce*`. The function's signature would have to be changed so that the value for `T` could be determined from the explicit parameters. ``` fn PeekAtTopOfStackParameterized [T:! Type, StackType:! StackParameterized(T)] (s: StackType*, _:! singleton_type_of(T)) -> T { ... } var produce: Produce = ...; var top_fruit: Fruit = PeekAtTopOfStackParameterized(&produce, Fruit); var top_veggie: Veggie = PeekAtTopOfStackParameterized(&produce, Veggie); ``` The pattern `_:! singleton_type_of(T)` is a placeholder syntax for an expression that will only match `T`, until issue [#578: Value patterns as function parameters](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/issues/578) is resolved. Using that pattern in the explicit parameter list allows us to make `T` available earlier in the declaration so it can be passed as the argument to the parameterized interface `StackParameterized`. This approach is useful for the `ComparableTo(T)` interface, where a type might be comparable with multiple other types, and in fact interfaces for [operator overloads](#operator-overloading) more generally. Example: ``` interface EquatableWith(T:! Type) { fn Equals[me: Self](rhs: T) -> bool; ... } class Complex { var real: f64; var imag: f64; // Can implement this interface more than once // as long as it has different arguments. impl as EquatableWith(Complex) { ... } impl as EquatableWith(f64) { ... } } ``` All interface parameters must be marked as "generic", using the `:!` syntax. This reflects these two properties of these parameters: - They must be resolved at compile-time, and so can't be passed regular dynamic values. - We allow either generic or template values to be passed in. **Note:** Interface parameters aren't required to be types, but that is the vast majority of cases. As an example, if we had an interface that allowed a type to define how the tuple-member-read operator would work, the index of the member could be an interface parameter: ``` interface ReadTupleMember(index:! u32) { let T:! Type; // Returns me[index] fn Get[me: Self]() -> T; } ``` This requires that the index be known at compile time, but allows different indices to be associated with different types. **Caveat:** When implementing an interface twice for a type, the interface parameters are required to always be different. For example: ``` interface Map(FromType:! Type, ToType:! Type) { fn Map[addr me: Self*](needle: FromType) -> Optional(ToType); } class Bijection(FromType:! Type, ToType:! Type) { impl as Map(FromType, ToType) { ... } impl as Map(ToType, FromType) { ... } } // ❌ Error: Bijection has two impls of interface Map(String, String) var oops: Bijection(String, String) = ...; ``` In this case, it would be better to have an [adapting type](#adapting-types) to contain the `impl` for the reverse map lookup, instead of implementing the `Map` interface twice: ``` class Bijection(FromType:! Type, ToType:! Type) { impl as Map(FromType, ToType) { ... } } adapter ReverseLookup(FromType:! Type, ToType:! Type) for Bijection(FromType, ToType) { impl as Map(ToType, FromType) { ... } } ``` **Comparison with other languages:** Rust calls [traits with type parameters "generic traits"](https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/items/traits.html#generic-traits) and [uses them for operator overloading](https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch19-03-advanced-traits.html#default-generic-type-parameters-and-operator-overloading). [Rust uses the term "type parameters"](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0195-associated-items.md#clearer-trait-matching) for both interface type parameters and associated types. The difference is that interface parameters are "inputs" since they _determine_ which `impl` to use, and associated types are "outputs" since they are determined _by_ the `impl`, but play no role in selecting the `impl`. ### Impl lookup Let's say you have some interface `I(T, U(V))` being implemented for some type `A(B(C(D), E))`. To satisfy the [orphan rule for coherence](#orphan-rule), that `impl` must be defined in some library that must be imported in any code that looks up whether that interface is implemented for that type. This requires that `impl` is defined in the same library that defines the interface or one of the names needed by the type. That is, the `impl` must be defined with one of `I`, `T`, `U`, `V`, `A`, `B`, `C`, `D`, or `E`. We further require anything looking up this `impl` to import the _definitions_ of all of those names. Seeing a forward declaration of these names is insufficient, since you can presumably see forward declarations without seeing an `impl` with the definition. This accomplishes a few goals: - The compiler can check that there is only one definition of any `impl` that is actually used, avoiding [One Definition Rule (ODR)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Definition_Rule) problems. - Every attempt to use an `impl` will see the exact same `impl`, making the interpretation and semantics of code consistent no matter its context, in accordance with the [low context-sensitivity principle](/docs/project/principles/low_context_sensitivity.md). - Allowing the `impl` to be defined with either the interface or the type addresses the [expression problem](https://eli.thegreenplace.net/2016/the-expression-problem-and-its-solutions). Note that [the rules for specialization](#lookup-resolution-and-specialization) do allow there to be more than one `impl` to be defined for a type, by unambiguously picking one as most specific. **References:** Implementation coherence is [defined in terminology](terminology.md#coherence), and is [a goal for Carbon](goals.md#coherence). More detail can be found in [this appendix with the rationale and alternatives considered](appendix-coherence.md). ### Parameterized named constraints We should also allow the [named constraint](#named-constraints) construct to support parameters. Parameters would work the same way as for interfaces. ## Where constraints So far, we have restricted a generic type parameter by saying it has to implement an interface or a set of interfaces. There are a variety of other constraints we would like to be able to express, such as applying restrictions to its associated types and associated constants. This is done using the `where` operator that adds constraints to a type-of-type. The where operator can be applied to a type-of-type in a declaration context: ``` // Constraints on function parameters: fn F[V:! D where ...](v: V) { ... } // Constraints on a class parameter: class S(T:! B where ...) { // Constraints on a method: fn G[me: Self, V:! D where ...](v: V); } // Constraints on an interface parameter: interface A(T:! B where ...) { // Constraints on an associated type: let U:! C where ...; // Constraints on an associated method: fn G[me: Self, V:! D where ...](v: V); } ``` We also allow you to name constraints using a `where` operator in a `let` or `constraint` definition. The expressions that can follow the `where` keyword are described in the ["constraint use cases"](#constraint-use-cases) section, but generally look like boolean expressions that should evaluate to `true`. The result of applying a `where` operator to a type-of-type is another type-of-type. Note that this expands the kinds of requirements that type-of-types can have from just interface requirements to also include the various kinds of constraints discussed later in this section. In addition, it can introduce relationships between different type variables, such as that a member of one is equal to the member of another. **Comparison with other languages:** Both Swift and Rust use `where` clauses on declarations instead of in the expression syntax. These happen after the type that is being constrained has been given a name and use that name to express the constraint. Rust also supports [directly passing in the values for associated types](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/0195-associated-items.html#constraining-associated-types) when using a trait as a constraint. This is helpful when specifying concrete types for all associated types in a trait in order to [make it object safe so it can be used to define a trait object type](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/0195-associated-items.html#trait-objects). Rust is adding trait aliases ([RFC](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1733-trait-alias.md), [tracking issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/41517)) to support naming some classes of constraints. ### Constraint use cases #### Set an associated constant to a specific value We might need to write a function that only works with a specific value of an [associated constant](#associated-constants) `N`. In this case, the name of the associated constant is written first, followed by an `=`, and then the value: ``` fn PrintPoint2D[PointT:! NSpacePoint where .N = 2](p: PointT) { Print(p.Get(0), ", ", p.Get(1)); } ``` Similarly in an interface definition: ``` interface Has2DPoint { let PointT:! NSpacePoint where .N = 2; } ``` To name such a constraint, you may use a `let` or a `constraint` declaration: ``` let Point2DInterface:! auto = NSpacePoint where .N = 2; constraint Point2DInterface { extends NSpacePoint where .N = 2; } ``` This syntax is also used to specify the values of [associated constants](#associated-constants) when implementing an interface for a type. **Concern:** Using `=` for this use case is not consistent with other `where` clauses that write a boolean expression that evaluates to `true` when the constraint is satisfied. A constraint to say that two associated constants should have the same value without specifying what specific value they should have must use `==` instead of `=`: ``` interface PointCloud { let Dim:! i32; let PointT:! NSpacePoint where .N == Dim; } ``` #### Same type constraints ##### Set an associated type to a specific value Functions accepting a generic type might also want to constrain one of its associated types to be a specific, concrete type. For example, we might want to have a function only accept stacks containing integers: ``` fn SumIntStack[T:! Stack where .ElementType = i32](s: T*) -> i32 { var sum: i32 = 0; while (!s->IsEmpty()) { // s->Pop() has type `T.ElementType` == i32: sum += s->Pop(); } return sum; } ``` To name these sorts of constraints, we could use `let` declarations or `constraint` definitions: ``` let IntStack:! auto = Stack where .ElementType = i32; constraint IntStack { extends Stack where .ElementType = i32; } ``` This syntax is also used to specify the values of [associated types](#associated-types) when implementing an interface for a type. ##### Equal generic types Alternatively, two generic types could be constrained to be equal to each other, without specifying what that type is. This uses `==` instead of `=`. For example, we could make the `ElementType` of an `Iterator` interface equal to the `ElementType` of a `Container` interface as follows: ``` interface Iterator { let ElementType:! Type; ... } interface Container { let ElementType:! Type; let IteratorType:! Iterator where .ElementType == ElementType; ... } ``` Given an interface with two associated types ``` interface PairInterface { let Left:! Type; let Right:! Type; } ``` we can constrain them to be equal in a function signature: ``` fn F[MatchedPairType:! PairInterface where .Left == .Right] (x: MatchedPairType*); ``` or in an interface definition: ``` interface HasEqualPair { let P:! PairInterface where .Left == .Right; } ``` This kind of constraint can be named: ``` let EqualPair:! auto = PairInterface where .Left == .Right; constraint EqualPair { extends PairInterface where .Left == .Right; } ``` Another example of same type constraints is when associated types of two different interfaces are constrained to be equal: ``` fn Map[CT:! Container, FT:! Function where .InputType == CT.ElementType] (c: CT, f: FT) -> Vector(FT.OutputType); ``` ###### Satisfying both type-of-types If the two types being constrained to be equal have been declared with different type-of-types, then the actual type value they are set to will have to satisfy both constraints. For example, if `SortedContainer.ElementType` is declared to be `Comparable`, then in this declaration: ``` fn Contains [SC:! SortedContainer, CT:! Container where .ElementType == SC.ElementType] (haystack: SC, needles: CT) -> bool; ``` the `where` constraint means `CT.ElementType` must satisfy `Comparable` as well. However, inside the body of `Contains`, `CT.ElementType` will only act like the implementation of `Comparable` is [external](#external-impl). That is, items from the `needles` container won't have an unqualified `Compare` method member, but can still be implicitly converted to `Comparable` and can still call `Compare` using the qualified member syntax, `needle.(Comparable.Compare)(elt)`. The rule is that an `==` `where` constraint between two type variables does not modify the set of unqualified member names of either type. (If you write `where .ElementType = String` with a `=` and a concrete type, then `.ElementType` is actually set to `String` including the complete unqualified `String` API.) Note that `==` constraints are symmetric, so the previous declaration of `Contains` is equivalent to an alternative declaration where `CT` is declared first and the `where` clause is attached to `SortedContainer`: ``` fn Contains [CT:! Container, SC:! SortedContainer where .ElementType == CT.ElementType] (haystack: SC, needles: CT) -> bool; ``` #### Type bound for associated type A `where` clause can express that a type must implement an interface. This is more flexible than the usual approach of including that interface in the type since it can be applied to associated type members as well. ##### Type bounds on associated types in declarations In the following example, normally the `ElementType` of a `Container` can be any type. The `SortContainer` function, however, takes a pointer to a type satisfying `Container` with the additional constraint that its `ElementType` must satisfy the `Comparable` interface. ``` interface Container { let ElementType:! Type; ... } fn SortContainer [ContainerType:! Container where .ElementType is Comparable] (container_to_sort: ContainerType*); ``` In contrast to [a same type constraint](#same-type-constraints), this does not say what type `ElementType` exactly is, just that it must satisfy some type-of-type. **Open question:** How do you spell that? Provisionally we are writing `is`, following Swift, but maybe we should have another operator that more clearly returns a boolean like `has_type`? **Note:** `Container` defines `ElementType` as having type `Type`, but `ContainerType.ElementType` has type `Comparable`. This is because `ContainerType` has type `Container where .ElementType is Comparable`, not `Container`. This means we need to be a bit careful when talking about the type of `ContainerType` when there is a `where` clause modifying it. ##### Type bounds on associated types in interfaces Given these definitions (omitting `ElementType` for brevity): ``` interface IteratorInterface { ... } interface ContainerInterface { let IteratorType:! IteratorInterface; ... } interface RandomAccessIterator { extends IteratorInterface; ... } ``` We can then define a function that only accepts types that implement `ContainerInterface` where its `IteratorType` associated type implements `RandomAccessIterator`: ``` fn F[ContainerType:! ContainerInterface where .IteratorType is RandomAccessIterator] (c: ContainerType); ``` We would like to be able to name this constraint, defining a `RandomAccessContainer` to be a type-of-type whose types satisfy `ContainerInterface` with an `IteratorType` satisfying `RandomAccessIterator`. ``` let RandomAccessContainer:! auto = ContainerInterface where .IteratorType is RandomAccessIterator; // or constraint RandomAccessContainer { extends ContainerInterface where .IteratorType is RandomAccessIterator; } // With the above definition: fn F[ContainerType:! RandomAccessContainer](c: ContainerType); // is equivalent to: fn F[ContainerType:! ContainerInterface where .IteratorType is RandomAccessIterator] (c: ContainerType); ``` #### Combining constraints Constraints can be combined by separating constraint clauses with the `and` keyword. This example expresses a constraint that two associated types are equal and satisfy an interface: ``` fn EqualContainers [CT1:! Container, CT2:! Container where .ElementType is HasEquality and .ElementType == CT1.ElementType] (c1: CT1*, c2: CT2*) -> bool; ``` **Comparison with other languages:** Swift and Rust use commas `,` to separate constraint clauses, but that only works because they place the `where` in a different position in a declaration. In Carbon, the `where` is attached to a type in a parameter list that is already using commas to separate parameters. #### Recursive constraints We sometimes need to constrain a type to equal one of its associated types. In this first example, we want to represent the function `Abs` which will return `Self` for some but not all types, so we use an associated type `MagnitudeType` to encode the return type: ``` interface HasAbs { extends Numeric; let MagnitudeType:! Numeric; fn Abs[me: Self]() -> MagnitudeType; } ``` For types representing subsets of the real numbers, such as `i32` or `f32`, the `MagnitudeType` will match `Self`, the type implementing an interface. For types representing complex numbers, the types will be different. For example, the `Abs()` applied to a `Complex64` value would produce a `f32` result. The goal is to write a constraint to restrict to the first case. In a second example, when you take the slice of a type implementing `Container` you get a type implementing `Container` which may or may not be the same type as the original container type. However, taking the slice of a slice always gives you the same type, and some functions want to only operate on containers whose slice type is the same as the container type. To solve this problem, we think of `Self` as an actual associated type member of every interface. We can then address it using `.Self` in a `where` clause, like any other associated type member. ``` fn Relu[T:! HasAbs where .MagnitudeType == .Self](x: T) { // T.MagnitudeType == T so the following is allowed: return (x.Abs() + x) / 2; } fn UseContainer[T:! Container where .SliceType == .Self](c: T) -> bool { // T.SliceType == T so `c` and `c.Slice(...)` can be compared: return c == c.Slice(...); } ``` Notice that in an interface definition, `Self` refers to the type implementing this interface while `.Self` refers to the associated type currently being defined. ``` interface Container { let ElementType:! Type; let SliceType:! Container where .ElementType == ElementType and .SliceType == .Self; fn GetSlice[addr me: Self*] (start: IteratorType, end: IteratorType) -> SliceType; } ``` These recursive constraints can be named: ``` let RealAbs:! auto = HasAbs where .MagnitudeType == .Self; constraint RealAbs { extends HasAbs where .MagnitudeType == Self; } let ContainerIsSlice:! auto = Container where .SliceType == .Self; constraint ContainerIsSlice { extends Container where .SliceType == Self; } ``` Note that using the `constraint` approach we can name these constraints using `Self` instead of `.Self`, since they refer to the same type. #### Parameterized type implements interface There are times when a function will pass a generic type parameter of the function as an argument to a parameterized type, as in the previous case, and in addition the function needs the result to implement a specific interface. ``` // Some parametized type. class Vector(T:! Type) { ... } // Parameterized type implements interface only for some arguments. external impl Vector(String) as Printable { ... } // Constraint: `T` such that `Vector(T)` implements `Printable` fn PrintThree [T:! Type where Vector(.Self) is Printable] (a: T, b: T, c: T) { var v: Vector(T) = (a, b, c); Print(v); } ``` **Comparison with other languages:** This use case was part of the [Rust rationale for adding support for `where` clauses](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/0135-where.html#motivation). #### Another type implements parameterized interface In this case, we need some other type to implement an interface parameterized by a generic type parameter. The syntax for this case follows the previous case, except now the `.Self` parameter is on the interface to the right of the `is`. For example, we might need a type parameter `T` to support explicit conversion from an integer type like `i32`: ``` interface As(T:! Type) { fn Convert[me: Self]() -> T; } fn Double[T:! Mul where i32 is As(.Self)](x: T) -> T { return x * (2 as T); } ``` ### Implied constraints Imagine we have a generic function that accepts an arbitrary `HashMap`: ``` fn LookUp[KeyType:! Type](hm: HashMap(KeyType, i32)*, k: KeyType) -> i32; fn PrintValueOrDefault[KeyType:! Printable, ValueT:! Printable & HasDefault] (map: HashMap(KeyType, ValueT), key: KeyT); ``` The `KeyType` in these declarations does not visibly satisfy the requirements of `HashMap`, which requires the type implement `Hashable` and other interfaces: ``` class HashMap( KeyType:! Hashable & EqualityComparable & Movable, ...) { ... } ``` In this case, `KeyType` gets `Hashable` and so on as _implied constraints_. Effectively that means that these functions are automatically rewritten to add a `where` constraint on `KeyType` attached to the `HashMap` type: ``` fn LookUp[KeyType:! Type] (hm: HashMap(KeyType, i32)* where KeyType is Hashable & EqualityComparable & Movable, k: KeyType) -> i32; fn PrintValueOrDefault[KeyType:! Printable, ValueT:! Printable & HasDefault] (map: HashMap(KeyType, ValueT) where KeyType is Hashable & EqualityComparable & Movable, key: KeyT); ``` In this case, Carbon will accept the definition and infer the needed constraints on the generic type parameter. This is both more concise for the author of the code and follows the ["don't repeat yourself" principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_repeat_yourself). This redundancy is undesirable since it means if the needed constraints for `HashMap` are changed, then the code has to be updated in more locations. Further it can add noise that obscures relevant information. In practice, any user of these functions will have to pass in a valid `HashMap` instance, and so will have already satisfied these constraints. This implied constraint is equivalent to the explicit constraint that each parameter and return type [is legal](#must-be-legal-type-argument-constraints). **Note:** These implied constraints affect the _requirements_ of a generic type parameter, but not its _unqualified member names_. This way you can always look at the declaration to see how name resolution works, without having to look up the definitions of everything it is used as an argument to. **Limitation:** To limit readability concerns and ambiguity, this feature is limited to a single signature. Consider this interface declaration: ``` interface GraphNode { let Edge:! Type; fn EdgesFrom[me: Self]() -> HashSet(Edge); } ``` One approach would be to say the use of `HashSet(Edge)` in the signature of the `EdgesFrom` function would imply that `Edge` satisfies the requirements of an argument to `HashSet`, such as being `Hashable`. Another approach would be to say that the `EdgesFrom` would only be conditionally available when `Edge` does satisfy the constraints on `HashSet` arguments. Instead, Carbon will reject this definition, requiring the user to include all the constraints required for the other declarations in the interface in the declaration of the `Edge` associated type. Similarly, a parameter to a class must be declared with all the constraints needed to declare the members of the class that depend on that parameter. **Comparison with other languages:** Both Swift ([1](https://www.swiftbysundell.com/tips/inferred-generic-type-constraints/), [2](https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/main/docs/Generics.rst#constraint-inference)) and [Rust](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=0b2d645bd205f24a7a6e2330d652c32e) support some form of this feature as part of their type inference. #### Must be legal type argument constraints Now consider the case that the generic type parameter is going to be used as an argument to a parameterized type in a function body, not in the signature. If the parameterized type was explicitly mentioned in the signature, the implied constraint feature would ensure all of its requirements were met. The developer can create a trivial [parameterized type implements interface](#parameterized-type-implements-interface) `where` constraint to just say the type is a legal with this argument, by saying that the parameterized type implements `Type`, which all types do. For example, a function that adds its parameters to a `HashSet` to deduplicate them, needs them to be `Hashable` and so on. To say "`T` is a type where `HashSet(T)` is legal," we can write: ``` fn NumDistinct[T:! Type where HashSet(.Self) is Type] (a: T, b: T, c: T) -> i32 { var set: HashSet(T); set.Add(a); set.Add(b); set.Add(c); return set.Size(); } ``` This has the same advantages over repeating the constraints on `HashSet` arguments in the type of `T` as the general implied constraints above. ### Open question: referencing names in the interface being defined Should the constraint in a `where` clause be required to only reference earlier names from this scope, as in this example? ``` interface Graph { let E: Edge; let V: Vert where .E == E and .Self == E.V; } ``` The downside is that if you could reference later names, there is a more pleasingly symmetric formulation of those same constraints: ``` interface Graph { let E: Edge where .V == V; let V: Vert where .E == E; } ``` **TODO:** Revisit this question once issue [#472: Open question: Calling functions defined later in the same file](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/issues/472) and proposal [#875: Principle: information accumulation](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/875) are resolved. ### Manual type equality Imagine we have some function with generic parameters: ``` fn F[T:! SomeInterface](x: T) { x.G(x.H()); } ``` We want to know if the return type of method `T.H` is the same as the parameter type of `T.G` in order to typecheck the function. However, determining whether two type expressions are transitively equal is in general undecidable, as [has been shown in Swift](https://forums.swift.org/t/swift-type-checking-is-undecidable/39024). Carbon's approach is to only allow implicit conversions between two type expressions that are constrained to be equal in a single where clause. This means that if two type expressions are only transitively equal, the user will need to include a sequence of casts or use an [`observe` declaration](#observe-declarations) to convert between them. Given this interface `Transitive` that has associated types that are constrained to all be equal, with interfaces `P`, `Q`, and `R`: ``` interface P { fn InP[me:Self](); } interface Q { fn InQ[me:Self](); } interface R { fn InR[me:Self](); } interface Transitive { let A:! P; let B:! Q where .Self == A; let C:! R where .Self == B; fn GetA[me: Self]() -> A; fn TakesC[me:Self](c: C); } ``` A cast to `B` is needed to call `TakesC` with a value of type `A`, so each step only relies on one equality: ``` fn F[T:! Transitive](t: T) { // ✅ Allowed t.TakesC(t.GetA() as T.B); // ✅ Allowed let b: T.B = t.GetA(); t.TakesC(b); // ❌ Not allowed: t.TakesC(t.GetA()); } ``` A value of type `A`, such as the return value of `GetA()`, has the API of `P`. Any such value also implements `Q`, and since the compiler can see that by way of a single `where` equality, values of type `A` are treated as if they implement `Q` [externally](terminology.md#external-impl). However, the compiler will require a cast to `B` or `C` to see that the type implements `R`. ``` fn TakesPQR[U:! P & Q & R](u: U); fn G[T:! Transitive](t: T) { var a: T.A = t.GetA(); // ✅ Allowed: `T.A` implements `P`. a.InP(); // ✅ Allowed: `T.A` implements `Q` externally. a.(Q.InQ)(); // ❌ Not allowed: a.InQ(); // ✅ Allowed: values of type `T.A` may be cast // to `T.B`, which implements `Q` internally. (a as T.B).InQ(); // ✅ Allowed: `T.B` implements `R` externally. (a as T.B).(R.InR)(); // ❌ Not allowed: TakesPQR(a); // ✅ Allowed: `T.B` implements `P`, `Q`, and // `R`, though the implementations of `P` // and `R` are external. TakesPQR(a as T.B); } ``` The compiler may have several different `where` clauses to consider, particularly when an interface has associated types that recursively satisfy the same interface. For example, given this interface `Commute`: ``` interface Commute { let X:! Commute; let Y:! Commute where .X == X.Y; fn GetX[me: Self]() -> X; fn GetY[me: Self]() -> Y; fn TakesXXY[me:Self](xxy: X.X.Y); } ``` and a function `H` taking a value with some type implementing this interface, then the following would be legal statements in `H`: ``` fn H[C: Commute](c: C) { // ✅ Legal: argument has type `C.X.X.Y` c.TakesXXY(c.GetX().GetX().GetY()); // ✅ Legal: argument has type `C.X.Y.X` which is equal // to `C.X.X.Y` following only one `where` clause. c.TakesXXY(c.GetX().GetY().GetX()); // ✅ Legal: cast is legal since it matches a `where` // clause, and produces an argument that has type // `C.X.Y.X`. c.TakesXXY(c.GetY().GetX().GetX() as C.X.Y.X); } ``` That last call would not be legal without the cast, though. **Comparison with other languages:** Other languages such as Swift and Rust instead perform automatic type equality. In practice this means that their compiler can reject some legal programs based on heuristics simply to avoid running for an unbounded length of time. The benefits of the manual approach include: - fast compilation, since the compiler does not need to explore a potentially large set of combinations of equality restrictions, supporting [Carbon's goal of fast and scalable development](/docs/project/goals.md#fast-and-scalable-development); - expressive and predictable semantics, since there are no limitations on how complex a set of constraints can be supported; and - simplicity. The main downsides are: - manual work for the source code author to prove to the compiler that types are equal; and - verbosity. We expect that rich error messages and IDE tooling will be able to suggest changes to the source code when a single equality constraint is not sufficient to show two type expressions are equal, but a more extensive automated search can find a sequence that prove they are equal. #### `observe` declarations An `observe` declaration lists a sequence of type expressions that are equal by some same-type `where` constraints. These `observe` declarations may be included in an `interface` definition or a function body, as in: ``` interface Commute { let X:! Commute; let Y:! Commute where .X == X.Y; ... observe X.X.Y == X.Y.X == Y.X.X; } fn H[C: Commute](c: C) { observe C.X.Y.Y == C.Y.X.Y == C.Y.Y.X; ... } ``` Every type expression after the first must be equal to some earlier type expression in the sequence by a single `where` equality constraint. In this example, ``` interface Commute { let X:! Commute; let Y:! Commute where .X == X.Y; ... // ✅ Legal: observe X.X.Y.Y == X.Y.X.Y == Y.X.X.Y == X.Y.Y.X; } ``` the expression `X.Y.Y.X` is one equality away from `X.Y.X.Y` and so it is allowed. This is even though `X.Y.X.Y` isn't the type expression immediately prior to `X.Y.Y.X`. After an `observe` declaration, all of the listed type expressions are considered equal to each other using a single `where` equality. In this example, the `observe` declaration in the `Transitive` interface definition provides the link between associated types `A` and `C` that allows function `F` to type check. ``` interface P { fn InP[me:Self](); } interface Q { fn InQ[me:Self](); } interface R { fn InR[me:Self](); } interface Transitive { let A:! P; let B:! Q where .Self == A; let C:! R where .Self == B; fn GetA[me: Self]() -> A; fn TakesC[me:Self](c: C); // Without this `observe` declaration, the // calls in `F` below would not be allowed. observe A == B == C; } fn TakesPQR[U:! P & Q & R](u: U); fn F[T:! Transitive](t: T) { var a: T.A = t.GetA(); // ✅ Allowed: `T.A` == `T.C` t.TakesC(a); a.(R.InR()); // ✅ Allowed: `T.A` implements `P`, // `T.A` == `T.B` that implements `Q`, and // `T.A` == `T.C` that implements `R`. TakesPQR(a); } ``` Since adding an `observe` declaration only adds external implementations of interfaces to generic types, they may be added without breaking existing code. ## Other constraints as type-of-types There are some constraints that we will naturally represent as named type-of-types. These can either be used directly to constrain a generic type parameter, or in a `where ... is ...` clause to constrain an associated type. The compiler determines which types implement these interfaces, developers can not explicitly implement these interfaces for their own types. **Open question:** Are these names part of the prelude or in a standard library? ### Is a derived class Given a type `T`, `Extends(T)` is a type-of-type whose values are types that are derived from `T`. That is, `Extends(T)` is the set of all types `U` that are subtypes of `T`. ``` fn F[T:! Extends(BaseType)](p: T*); fn UpCast[T:! Type](p: T*, U:! Type where T is Extends(.Self)) -> U*; fn DownCast[T:! Type](p: T*, U:! Extends(T)) -> U*; ``` **Open question:** Alternatively, we could define a new `extends` operator: ``` fn F[T:! Type where .Self extends BaseType](p: T*); fn UpCast[T:! Type](p: T*, U:! Type where T extends .Self) -> U*; fn DownCast[T:! Type](p: T*, U:! Type where .Self extends T) -> U*; ``` **Comparison to other languages:** In Swift, you can [add a required superclass to a type bound using `&`](https://docs.swift.org/swift-book/LanguageGuide/Protocols.html#ID282). ### Type compatible with another type Given a type `U`, define the type-of-type `CompatibleWith(U)` as follows: > `CompatibleWith(U)` is a type whose values are types `T` such that `T` and `U` > are [compatible](terminology.md#compatible-types). That is values of types `T` > and `U` can be cast back and forth without any change in representation (for > example `T` is an [adapter](#adapting-types) for `U`). To support this, we extend the requirements that type-of-types are allowed to have to include a "data representation requirement" option. `CompatibleWith` determines an equivalence relationship between types. Specifically, given two types `T1` and `T2`, they are equivalent if `T1 is CompatibleWith(T2)`. That is, if `T1` has the type `CompatibleWith(T2)`. **Note:** Just like interface parameters, we require the user to supply `U`, they may not be deduced. Specifically, this code would be illegal: ``` fn Illegal[U:! Type, T:! CompatibleWith(U)](x: T*) ... ``` In general there would be multiple choices for `U` given a specific `T` here, and no good way of picking one. However, similar code is allowed if there is another way of determining `U`: ``` fn Allowed[U:! Type, T:! CompatibleWith(U)](x: U*, y: T*) ... ``` #### Same implementation restriction In some cases, we need to restrict to types that implement certain interfaces the same way as the type `U`. > The values of type `CompatibleWith(U, TT)` are types satisfying > `CompatibleWith(U)` that have the same implementation of `TT` as `U`. For example, if we have a type `HashSet(T)`: ``` class HashSet(T:! Hashable) { ... } ``` Then `HashSet(T)` may be cast to `HashSet(U)` if `T is CompatibleWith(U, Hashable)`. The one-parameter interpretation of `CompatibleWith(U)` is recovered by letting the default for the second `TT` parameter be `Type`. #### Example: Multiple implementations of the same interface This allows us to represent functions that accept multiple implementations of the same interface for a type. ``` enum CompareResult { Less, Equal, Greater } interface Comparable { fn Compare[me: Self](rhs: Self) -> CompareResult; } fn CombinedLess[T:! Type](a: T, b: T, U:! CompatibleWith(T) & Comparable, V:! CompatibleWith(T) & Comparable) -> bool { match ((a as U).Compare(b as U)) { case CompareResult.Less => { return True; } case CompareResult.Greater => { return False; } case CompareResult.Equal => { return (a as V).Compare(b as V) == CompareResult.Less; } } } ``` Used as: ``` class Song { ... } adapter SongByArtist for Song { impl as Comparable { ... } } adapter SongByTitle for Song { impl as Comparable { ... } } var s1: Song = ...; var s2: Song = ...; assert(CombinedLess(s1, s2, SongByArtist, SongByTitle) == True); ``` We might generalize this to a list of implementations: ``` fn CombinedCompare[T:! Type] (a: T, b: T, CompareList:! List(CompatibleWith(T) & Comparable)) -> CompareResult { for (let U:! auto in CompareList) { var result: CompareResult = (a as U).Compare(b); if (result != CompareResult.Equal) { return result; } } return CompareResult.Equal; } assert(CombinedCompare(Song(...), Song(...), (SongByArtist, SongByTitle)) == CompareResult.Less); ``` **Open question:** How are compile-time lists of types declared and iterated through? They will also be needed for [variadic argument support](#variadic-arguments). #### Example: Creating an impl out of other impls And then to package this functionality as an implementation of `Comparable`, we combine `CompatibleWith` with [type adaptation](#adapting-types): ``` adapter ThenCompare( T:! Type, CompareList:! List(CompatibleWith(T) & Comparable)) for T { impl as Comparable { fn Compare[me: Self](rhs: Self) -> CompareResult { for (let U:! auto in CompareList) { var result: CompareResult = (me as U).Compare(rhs as U); if (result != CompareResult.Equal) { return result; } } return CompareResult.Equal; } } } let SongByArtistThenTitle: auto = ThenCompare(Song, (SongByArtist, SongByTitle)); var s1: Song = ...; var s2: SongByArtistThenTitle = Song(...) as SongByArtistThenTitle; assert((s1 as SongByArtistThenTitle).Compare(s2) == CompareResult.Less); ``` ### Sized types and type-of-types What is the size of a type? - It could be fully known and fixed at compile time -- this is true of primitive types (`i32`, `f64`, and so on), most [classes](/docs/design/classes.md), and most other concrete types. - It could be known generically. This means that it will be known at codegen time, but not at type-checking time. - It could be dynamic. For example, it could be a [dynamic type](#runtime-type-fields), a slice, variable-sized type (such as [found in Rust](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nomicon/exotic-sizes.html#dynamically-sized-types-dsts)), or you could dereference a pointer to a base class that could actually point to a [derived class](/docs/design/classes.md#inheritance). - It could be unknown which category the type is in. In practice this will be essentially equivalent to having dynamic size. A type is called _sized_ if it is in the first two categories, and _unsized_ otherwise. Note: something with size 0 is still considered "sized". The type-of-type `Sized` is defined as follows: > `Sized` is a type whose values are types `T` that are "sized" -- that is the > size of `T` is known, though possibly only generically. Knowing a type is sized is a precondition to declaring variables of that type, taking values of that type as parameters, returning values of that type, and defining arrays of that type. Users will not typically need to express the `Sized` constraint explicitly, though, since it will usually be a dependency of some other constraint the type will need such as `Movable`. **Note:** The compiler will determine which types are "sized", this is not something types will implement explicitly like ordinary interfaces. Example: ``` // In the Carbon standard library interface DefaultConstructible { // Types must be sized to be default constructible. impl as Sized; fn Default() -> Self; } // Classes are "sized" by default. class Name { impl as DefaultConstructible { fn Default() -> Self { ... } } ... } fn F[T:! Type](x: T*) { // T is unsized. // ✅ Allowed: may access unsized values through a pointer. var y: T* = x; // ❌ Illegal: T is unsized. var z: T; } // T is sized, but its size is only known generically. fn G[T: DefaultConstructible](x: T*) { // ✅ Allowed: T is default constructible, which means sized. var y: T = T.Default(); } var z: Name = Name.Default();; // ✅ Allowed: `Name` is sized and implements `DefaultConstructible`. G(&z); ``` **Open question:** Even if the size is fixed, it won't be known at the time of compiling the generic function if we are using the dynamic strategy. Should we automatically [box]() local variables when using the dynamic strategy? Or should we only allow `MaybeBox` values to be instantiated locally? Or should this just be a case where the compiler won't necessarily use the dynamic strategy? **Open question:** Should the `Sized` type-of-type expose an associated constant with the size? So you could say `T.ByteSize` in the above example to get a generic int value with the size of `T`. Similarly you might say `T.ByteStride` to get the number of bytes used for each element of an array of `T`. #### Implementation model This requires a special integer field be included in the witness table type to hold the size of the type. This field will only be known generically, so if its value is used for type checking, we need some way of evaluating those type tests symbolically. ### `TypeId` There are some capabilities every type can provide. For example, every type should be able to return its name or identify whether it is equal to another type. It is rare, however, for code to need to access these capabilities, so we relegate these capabilities to an interface called `TypeId` that all types automatically implement. This way generic code can indicate that it needs those capabilities by including `TypeId` in the list of requirements. In the case where no type capabilities are needed, for example the code is only manipulating pointers to the type, you would write `T:! Type` and get the efficiency of `void*` but without giving up type safety. ``` fn SortByAddress[T:! Type](v: Vector(T*)*) { ... } ``` In particular, the compiler should in general avoid monomorphizing to generate multiple instantiations of the function in this case. **Note:** To achieve this goal, the user will not even be allowed to destroy a value of type `T` in this case. **Open question:** Should `TypeId` be [implemented externally](terminology.md#external-impl) for types to avoid name pollution (`.TypeName`, `.TypeHash`, etc.) unless the function specifically requests those capabilities? ## Generic `let` A `let` statement inside a function body may be used to get the change in type behavior of calling a generic function without having to introduce a function call. ``` fn F(...) { ... let T:! C = U; X; Y; Z; } ``` gets rewritten to: ``` fn F(...) { ... fn Closure(T:! C where .Self == U) { X; Y; Z; } Closure(U); } ``` The `where .Self == U` modifier allows values to implicitly convert between type `T`, the erased type, and type `U`, the concrete type. Note that implicit conversion is [only performed across a single `where` equality](#manual-type-equality). This can be used to switch to the API of `C` when it is external, as an alternative to [using an adapter](#use-case-accessing-external-names), or to simplify inlining of a generic function while preserving semantics. ## Parameterized impls There are cases where an impl definition should apply to more than a single type and interface combination. The solution is to parameterize the impl definition, so it applies to a family of types, interfaces, or both. This includes: - Declare an impl for a parameterized type, which may be external or declared out-of-line. - "Conditional conformance" where a parameterized type implements some interface if the parameter to the type satisfies some criteria, like implementing the same interface. - "Blanket" impls where an interface is implemented for all types that implement another interface, or some other criteria beyond being a specific type. - "Wildcard" impls where a family of interfaces are implemented for single type. ### Impl for a parameterized type Interfaces may be implemented for a parameterized type. This can be done lexically in the class' scope: ``` class Vector(T:! Type) { impl as Iterable where .ElementType = T { ... } } ``` This is equivalent to naming the type between `impl` and `as`: ``` class Vector(T:! Type) { impl Vector(T) as Iterable where .ElementType = T { ... } } ``` An impl may be declared [external](#external-impl) by adding an `external` keyword before `impl`. External impls may also be declared out-of-line: ``` external impl [T:! Type] Vector(T) as Iterable where .ElementType = T { ... } // This syntax is also allowed: external impl Vector(T:! Type) as Iterable where .ElementType = T { ... } ``` The parameter for the type can be used as an argument to the interface being implemented: ``` class HashMap(Key:! Hashable, Value:! Type) { impl as Has(Key) { ... } impl as Contains(HashSet(Key)) { ... } } ``` or externally out-of-line: ``` class HashMap(Key:! Hashable, Value:! Type) { ... } external impl [Key:! Hashable, Value:! Type] HashMap(Key, Value) as Has(Key) { ... } external impl [Key:! Hashable, Value:! Type] HashMap(Key, Value) as Contains(HashSet(Key)) { ... } // This syntax is also allowed: external impl HashMap(Key:! Hashable, Value:! Type) as Has(Key) { ... } external impl HashMap(Key:! Hashable, Value:! Type) as Contains(HashSet(Key)) { ... } ``` ### Conditional conformance [Conditional conformance](terminology.md#conditional-conformance) is expressing that we have an `impl` of some interface for some type, but only if some additional type restrictions are met. Examples where this would be useful include being able to say that a container type, like `Vector`, implements some interface when its element type satisfies the same interface: - A container is printable if its elements are. - A container could be compared to another container with the same element type using a [lexicographic comparison](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexicographic_order) if the element type is comparable. - A container is copyable if its elements are. To do this with an [`external impl`](#external-impl), specify a more-specific `Self` type to the left of the `as` in the declaration: ``` interface Printable { fn Print[me: Self](); } class Vector(T:! Type) { ... } // By saying "T:! Printable" instead of "T:! Type" here, // we constrain T to be Printable for this impl. external impl [T:! Printable] Vector(T) as Printable { fn Print[me: Self]() { for (let a: T in me) { // Can call `Print` on `a` since the constraint // on `T` ensures it implements `Printable`. a.Print(); } } } // This syntax is also allowed: external impl Vector(T:! Printable) as Printable { ... } ``` To define these `impl`s inline in a `class` definition, include a more-specific type between the `impl` and `as` keywords. ``` class Array(T:! Type, template N:! Int) { // These are both allowed: impl [P:! Printable] Array(P, N) as Printable { ... } impl Array(P:! Printable, N) as Printable { ... } } ``` It is legal to add the keyword `external` before the `impl` keyword to switch to an external impl defined lexically within the class scope. Inside the scope, both `P` and `T` refer to the same type, but `P` has the type-of-type of `Printable` and so has a `Print` member. The relationship between `T` and `P` is as if there was a `where P == T` clause. **TODO:** Need to resolve whether the `T` name can be reused, or if we require that you need to use new names, like `P`, when creating new type variables. **Example:** Consider a type with two parameters, like `Pair(T, U)`. In this example, the interface `Foo(T)` is only implemented when the two types are equal. ``` interface Foo(T:! Type) { ... } class Pair(T:! Type, U:! Type) { ... } external impl [T:! Type] Pair(T, T) as Foo(T) { ... } ``` You may also define the `impl` inline, in which case it can be internal: ``` class Pair(T:! Type, U:! Type) { impl Pair(T, T) as Foo(T) { ... } } ``` **Clarification:** Method lookup will look at all internal implementations, whether or not the conditions on those implementations hold for the `Self` type. If the conditions don't hold, then the call will be rejected because `Self` has the wrong type, just like any other argument/parameter type mismatch. This means types may not implement two different interfaces internally if they share a member name, even if their conditions are mutually exclusive: ``` class X(T:! Type) { impl X(i32) as Foo { fn F[me: Self](); } impl X(i64) as Bar { // ❌ Illegal: name conflict between `Foo.F` and `Bar.F` fn F[me: Self](n: i64); } } ``` However, the same interface may be implemented multiple times as long as there is no overlap in the conditions: ``` class X(T:! Type) { impl X(i32) as Foo { fn F[me: Self](); } impl X(i64) as Foo { // ✅ Allowed: `X(T).F` consistently means `X(T).(Foo.F)` fn F[me: Self](); } } ``` This allows a type to express that it implements an interface for a list of types, possibly with different implementations. In general, `X(T).F` can only mean one thing, regardless of `T`. **Concern:** The conditional conformance feature makes the question "is this interface implemented for this type" undecidable in general. [This feature in Rust has been shown to allow implementing a Turing machine](https://sdleffler.github.io/RustTypeSystemTuringComplete/). The acyclic restriction may eliminate this issue, otherwise we will likely need some heuristic like a limit on how many steps of recursion are allowed. **Comparison with other languages:** [Swift supports conditional conformance](https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0143-conditional-conformances.md), but bans cases where there could be ambiguity from overlap. [Rust also supports conditional conformance](https://doc.rust-lang.org/rust-by-example/generics/where.html). #### Conditional methods A method could be defined conditionally for a type by using a more specific type in place of `Self` in the method declaration. For example, this is how to define a vector type that only has a `Sort` method if its elements implement the `Comparable` interface: ``` class Vector(T:! Type) { // `Vector(T)` has a `Sort()` method if `T` is `Comparable`. fn Sort[C:! Comparable, addr me: Vector(C)*](); } ``` **Comparison with other languages:** In [Rust](https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch10-02-traits.html#using-trait-bounds-to-conditionally-implement-methods) this feature is part of conditional conformance. Swift supports conditional methods using [conditional extensions](https://docs.swift.org/swift-book/LanguageGuide/Generics.html#ID553) or [contextual where clauses](https://docs.swift.org/swift-book/LanguageGuide/Generics.html#ID628). ### Blanket impls A _blanket impl_ is an `impl` that could apply to more than one root type, so the `impl` will use a type variable for the `Self` type. Here are some examples where blanket impls arise: - Any type implementing `Ordered` should get an implementation of `PartiallyOrdered`. ``` external impl [T:! Ordered] T as PartiallyOrdered { ... } ``` - `T` implements `CommonType(T)` for all `T` ``` external impl [T:! Type] T as CommonType(T) where .Result = T { } ``` This means that every type is the common type with itself. Blanket impls must always be [external](#external-impl) and defined lexically out-of-line. #### Difference between blanket impls and named constraints A blanket interface can be used to say "any type implementing `interface I` also implements `interface B`." Compare this with defining a `constraint C` that requires `I`. In that case, `C` will also be implemented any time `I` is. There are differences though: - There can be other implementations of `interface B` without a corresponding implementation of `I`, unless `B` has a requirement on `I`. However, the types implementing `C` will be the same as the types implementing `I`. - More specialized implementations of `B` can override the blanket implementation. ### Wildcard impls A _wildcard impl_ is an impl that defines a family of interfaces for a single `Self` type. For example, the `BigInt` type might implement `AddTo(T)` for all `T` that implement `ImplicitAs(i32)`. The implementation would first convert `T` to `i32` and then add the `i32` to the `BigInt` value. ``` class BigInt { extern impl [T:! ImplicitAs(i32)] as AddTo(T) { ... } // Or: extern impl as AddTo(T:! ImplicitAs(i32)) { ... } } // Or out-of-line: extern impl [T:! ImplicitAs(i32)] BigInt as AddTo(T) { ... } // Or: extern impl BigInt as AddTo(T:! ImplicitAs(i32)) { ... } ``` Wildcard impls must always be [external](#external-impl), to avoid having the names in the interface defined for the type multiple times. ### Combinations The different kinds of parameters to impls may be combined. For example, if `T` implements `As(U)`, then this implements `As(Optional(U))` for `Optional(T)`: ``` external impl [U:! Type, T:! As(U)] Optional(T) as As(Optional(U)) { ... } ``` This has a wildcard parameter `U`, and a condition on parameter `T`. ### Lookup resolution and specialization As much as possible, we want rules for where an impl is allowed to be defined and for selecting which impl to use that achieve these three goals: - Implementations have coherence, as [defined in terminology](terminology.md#coherence). This is [a goal for Carbon](goals.md#coherence). More detail can be found in [this appendix with the rationale and alternatives considered](appendix-coherence.md). - Libraries will work together as long as they pass their separate checks. - A generic function can assume that some impl will be successfully selected if it can see an impl that applies, even though another more specific impl may be selected. For this to work, we need a rule that picks a single `impl` in the case where there are multiple `impl` definitions that match a particular type and interface combination. This is called _specialization_ when the rule is that most specific implementation is chosen, for some definition of specific. #### Type structure of an impl declaration Given an impl declaration, find the type structure by deleting deduced parameters and replacing type parameters by a `?`. The type structure of this declaration: ``` impl [T:! ..., U:! ...] Foo(T, i32) as Bar(String, U) { ... } ``` is: ``` impl Foo(?, i32) as Bar(String, ?) ``` To get a uniform representation across different `impl` definitions, before type parameters are replaced the declarations are normalized as follows: - For impls declared lexically inline in a class definition, the type is added between the `impl` and `as` keywords if the type is left out. - Pointer types `T*` are replaced with `Ptr(T)`. - The `external` keyword is removed, if present. - Any `where` clauses that are setting associated constants or types are removed. The type structure will always contain a single interface name, which is the name of the interface being implemented, and some number of type names. Type names can be in the `Self` type to the left of the `as` keyword, or as parameters to other types or the interface. These names must always be defined either in the current library or be publicly defined in some library this library depends on. #### Orphan rule To achieve coherence, we need to ensure that any given impl can only be defined in a library that must be imported for it to apply. Specifically, given a specific type and specific interface, impls that can match can only be in libraries that must have been imported to name that type or interface. This is achieved with the _orphan rule_. **Orphan rule:** Some name from the type structure of an `impl` declaration must be defined in the same library as the `impl`, that is some name must be _local_. Only the implementing interface and types (self type and type parameters) in the type structure are relevant here; an interface mentioned in a constraint is not sufficient since it [need not be imported](/proposals/p0920.md#orphan-rule-could-consider-interface-requirements-in-blanket-impls). Since Carbon in addition requires there be no cyclic library dependencies, we conclude that there is at most one library that can define impls with a particular type structure. #### Overlap rule Given a specific concrete type, say `Foo(bool, i32)`, and an interface, say `Bar(String, f32)`, the overlap rule picks, among all the matching impls, which type structure is considered "most specific" to use as the implementation of that type for that interface. Given two different type structures of impls matching a query, for example: ``` impl Foo(?, i32) as Bar(String, ?) impl Foo(?, ?) as Bar(String, f32) ``` We pick the type structure with a non-`?` at the first difference as most specific. Here we see a difference between `Foo(?, i32)` and `Foo(?, ?)`, so we select the one with `Foo(?, i32)`, ignoring the fact that it has another `?` later in its type structure This rule corresponds to a depth-first traversal of the type tree to identify the first difference, and then picking the most specific choice at that difference. #### Prioritization rule Since at most one library can define impls with a given type structure, all impls with a given type structure must be in the same library. Furthermore by the [impl declaration access rules](#access), they will be defined in the API file for the library if they could match any query from outside the library. If there is more than one impl with that type structure, they must be written together in a prioritization block. Once a type structure is selected for a query, the first impl in the prioritization block that matches is selected. **Open question:** How are prioritization blocks written? A block starts with a keyword like `match_first` or `impl_priority` and then a sequence of impl declarations inside matching curly braces `{` ... `}`. ``` match_first { // If T is Foo prioritized ahead of T is Bar impl [T:! Foo] T as Bar { ... } impl [T:! Baz] T as Bar { ... } } ``` **Open question:** How do we pick between two different prioritization blocks when they contain a mixture of type structures? There are three options: - Prioritization blocks implicitly define all non-empty intersections of contained impls, which are then selected by their type structure. - The compiler first picks the impl with the type pattern most favored for the query, and then picks the definition of the highest priority matching impl in the same prioritization block block. - All the impls in a prioritization block are required to have the same type structure, at a cost in expressivity. To see the difference between the first two options, consider two libraries with type structures as follows: - Library B has `impl (A, ?, ?, D) as I` and `impl (?, B, ?, D) as I` in the same prioritization block. - Library C has `impl (A, ?, C, ?) as I`. For the query `(A, B, C, D) as I`, using the intersection rule, library B is considered to have the intersection impl with type structure `impl (A, B, ?, D) as I` which is the most specific. If we instead just considered the rules mentioned explicitly, then `impl (A, ?, C, ?) as I` from library C is the most specific. The advantage of the implicit intersection rule is that if library B is changed to add an impl with type structure `impl (A, B, ?, D) as I`, it won't shift which library is serving that query. #### Acyclic rule A cycle is when a query, such as "does type `T` implement interface `I`?", considers an impl that might match, and whether that impl matches is ultimately dependent on whether that query is true. These are cycles in the graph of (type, interface) pairs where there is an edge from pair A to pair B if whether type A implements interface A determines whether type B implements interface B. The test for whether something forms a cycle needs to be precise enough, and not erase too much information when considering this graph, that these impls are not considered to form cycles with themselves: ``` impl [T:! Printable] Optional(T) as Printable; impl [T:! Type, U:! ComparableTo(T)] U as ComparableTo(Optional(T)); ``` **Example:** If `T` implements `ComparableWith(U)`, then `U` should implement `ComparableWith(T)`. ``` external impl [U:! Type, T:! ComparableWith(U)] U as ComparableWith(T); ``` This is a cycle where which types implement `ComparableWith` determines which types implement the same interface. **Example:** Cycles can create situations where there are multiple ways of selecting impls that are inconsistent with each other. Consider an interface with two blanket `impl` declarations: ``` class Y {} class N {} interface True {} impl Y as True {} interface Z(T:! Type) { let Cond:! Type; } match_first { impl [T:! Type, U:! Z(T) where .Cond is True] T as Z(U) where .Cond = N { } impl [T:! Type, U:! Type] T as Z(U) where .Cond = Y { } } ``` What is `i8.(Z(i16).Cond)`? It depends on which of the two blanket impls are selected. - An implementation of `Z(i16)` for `i8` could come from the first blanket impl with `T == i8` and `U == i16` if `i16 is Z(i8)` and `i16.(Z(i8).Cond) == Y`. This condition is satisfied if `i16` implements `Z(i8)` using the second blanket impl. In this case, `i8.(Z(i16).Cond) == N`. - Equally well `Z(i8)` could be implemented for `i16` using the first blanket impl and `Z(i16)` for `i8` using the second. In this case, `i8.(Z(i16).Cond) == Y`. There is no reason to to prefer one of these outcomes over the other. **Example:** Further, cycles can create contradictions in the type system: ``` class A {} class B {} class C {} interface D(T:! Type) { let Cond:! Type; } match_first { impl [T:! Type, U:! D(T) where .Cond = B] T as D(U) where .Cond = C { } impl [T:! Type, U:! D(T) where .Cond = A] T as D(U) where .Cond = B { } impl [T:! Type, U:! Type] T as D(U) where .Cond = A { } } ``` What is `i8.(D(i16).Cond)`? The answer is determined by which blanket impl is selected to implement `D(i16)` for `i8`: - If the third blanket impl is selected, then `i8.(D(i16).Cond) == A`. This implies that `i16.(D(i8).Cond) == B` using the second blanket impl. If that is true, though, then our first impl choice was incorrect, since the first blanket impl applies and is higher priority. So `i8.(D(i16).Cond) == C`. But that means that `i16 as D(i8)` can't use the second blanket impl. - For the second blanket impl to be selected, so `i8.(D(i16).Cond) == B`, `i16.(D(i8).Cond)` would have to be `A`. This happens when `i16` implements `D(i8)` using the third blanket impl. However, `i8.(D(i16).Cond) == B` means that there is a higher priority implementation of `D(i8).Cond` for `i16`. In either case, we arrive at a contradiction. The workaround for this problem is to either split an interface in the cycle in two, with a blanket implementation of one from the other, or move some of the criteria into a [named constraint](#named-constraints). **Concern:** Cycles could be spread out across libraries with no dependencies between them. This means there can be problems created by a library that are only detected by its users. **Open question:** Should Carbon reject cycles in the absence of a query? The two options here are: - Combining impls gives you an immediate error if there exists queries using those impls that have cycles. - Only when a query reveals a cyclic dependency is an error reported. **Open question:** In the second case, should we ignore cycles if they don't affect the result of the query? For example, the cycle might be among implementations that are lower priority. #### Termination rule It is possible to define a set of impls where there isn't a cycle, but the graph is infinite. Without some rule to prevent exhaustive exploration of the graph, determining whether a type implements an interface could run forever. **Example:** It could be that `A` implements `B`, so `A is B` if `Optional(A) is B`, if `Optional(Optional(A)) is B`, and so on. This could be the result of a single impl: ``` impl [A:! Type where Optional(.Self) is B] A as B { ... } ``` This problem can also result from a chain of impls, as in `A is B` if `A* is C`, if `Optional(A) is B`, and so on. Rust solves this problem by imposing a recursion limit, much like C++ compilers use to terminate template recursion. This goes against [Carbon's goal of predictability in generics](goals.md#predictability), but at this time there are no known alternatives. Unfortunately, the approach Carbon uses to avoid undecidability for type equality, [providing an explicit proof in the source](#manual-type-equality), can't be used here. The code triggering the query asking whether some type implements an interface will typically be generic code with know specific knowledge about the types involved, and won't be in a position to provide a manual proof that the implementation should exist. **Open question:** Is there some restriction on `impl` declarations that would allow our desired use cases, but allow the compiler to detect non-terminating cases? Perhaps there is some sort of complexity measure Carbon can require doesn't increase when recursing? ### `final` impls There are cases where knowing that a parameterized impl won't be specialized is particularly valuable. This could let the compiler know the return type of a generic function call, such as using an operator: ``` // Interface defining the behavior of the prefix-* operator interface Deref { let Result:! Type; fn DoDeref[me: Self]() -> Result; } // Types implementing `Deref` class Ptr(T:! Type) { ... external impl as Deref where .Result = T { fn DoDeref[me: Self]() -> Result { ... } } } class Optional(T:! Type) { ... external impl as Deref where .Result = T { fn DoDeref[me: Self]() -> Result { ... } } } fn F[T:! Type](x: T) { // uses Ptr(T) and Optional(T) in implementation } ``` The concern is the possibility of specializing `Optional(T) as Deref` or `Ptr(T) as Deref` for a more specific `T` means that the compiler can't assume anything about the return type of `Deref.DoDeref` calls. This means `F` would in practice have to add a constraint, which is both verbose and exposes what should be implementation details: ``` fn F[T:! Type where Optional(T).(Deref.Result) == .Self and Ptr(T).(Deref.Result) == .Self](x: T) { // uses Ptr(T) and Optional(T) in implementation } ``` To mark an impl as not able to be specialized, prefix it with the keyword `final`: ``` class Ptr(T:! Type) { ... // Note: added `final` final external impl as Deref where .Result = T { fn DoDeref[me: Self]() -> Result { ... } } } class Optional(T:! Type) { ... // Note: added `final` final external impl as Deref where .Result = T { fn DoDeref[me: Self]() -> Result { ... } } } // ❌ Illegal: external impl Ptr(i32) as Deref { ... } // ❌ Illegal: external impl Optional(i32) as Deref { ... } ``` This prevents any higher-priority impl that overlaps a final impl from being defined. Further, if the Carbon compiler sees a matching final impl, it can assume it won't be specialized so it can use the assignments of the associated types in that impl definition. ``` fn F[T:! Type](x: T) { var p: Ptr(T) = ...; // *p has type `T` var o: Optional(T) = ...; // *o has type `T` } ``` #### Libraries that can contain `final` impls To prevent the possibility of two unrelated libraries defining conflicting impls, Carbon restricts which libraries may declare an impl as `final` to only: - the library declaring the impl's interface and - the library declaring the root of the `Self` type. This means: - A blanket impl with type structure `impl ? as MyInterface(...)` may only be defined in the same library as `MyInterface`. - An impl with type structure `impl MyType(...) as MyInterface(...)` may be defined in the library with `MyType` or `MyInterface`. These restrictions ensure that the Carbon compiler can locally check that no higher-priority impl is defined superseding a `final` impl. - An impl with type structure `impl MyType(...) as MyInterface(...)` defined in the library with `MyType` must import the library defining `MyInterface`, and so will be able to see any final blanket impls. - A blanket impl with type structure `impl ? as MyInterface(...ParameterType(...)...)` may be defined in the library with `ParameterType`, but that library must import the library defining `MyInterface`, and so will be able to see any `final` blanket impls that might overlap. A final impl with type structure `impl MyType(...) as MyInterface(...)` would be given priority over any overlapping blanket impl defined in the `ParameterType` library. - An impl with type structure `impl MyType(...ParameterType(...)...) as MyInterface(...)` may be defined in the library with `ParameterType`, but that library must import the libraries defining `MyType` and `MyInterface`, and so will be able to see any `final` impls that might overlap. ### Comparison to Rust Rust has been designing a specialization feature, but it has not been completed. Luckily, Rust team members have done a lot of blogging during their design process, so Carbon can benefit from the work they have done. However, getting specialization to work for Rust is complicated by the need to maintain compatibility with existing Rust code. This motivates a number of Rust rules where Carbon can be simpler. As a result there are both similarites and differences between the Carbon and Rust plans: - A Rust impl defaults to not being able to be specialized, with a `default` keyword used to opt-in to allowing specialization, reflecting the existing code base developed without specialization. Carbon impls default to allowing specialization, with restrictions on which may be declared `final`. - Since Rust impls are not specializable by default, generic functions can assume that if a matching blanket impl is found, the associated types from that impl will be used. In Carbon, if a generic function requires an associated type to have a particular value, the function commonly will need to state that using an explicit constraint. - Carbon will not have the "fundamental" attribute used by Rust on types or traits, as described in [Rust RFC 1023: "Rebalancing Coherence"](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/1023-rebalancing-coherence.html). - Carbon will not use "covering" rules, as described in [Rust RFC 2451: "Re-Rebalancing Coherence"](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/2451-re-rebalancing-coherence.html) and [Little Orphan Impls: The covered rule](http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2015/01/14/little-orphan-impls/#the-covered-rule). - Like Rust, Carbon does use ordering, favoring the `Self` type and then the parameters to the interface in left-to-right order, see [Rust RFC 1023: "Rebalancing Coherence"](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/1023-rebalancing-coherence.html) and [Little Orphan Impls: The ordered rule](http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2015/01/14/little-orphan-impls/#the-ordered-rule), but the specifics are different. - Carbon is not planning to support any inheritance of implementation between impls. This is more important to Rust since Rust does not support class inheritance for implementation reuse. Rust has considered multiple approaches here, see [Aaron Turon: "Specialize to Reuse"](http://aturon.github.io/tech/2015/09/18/reuse/) and [Supporting blanket impls in specialization](http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2016/10/24/supporting-blanket-impls-in-specialization/). - [Supporting blanket impls in specialization](http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2016/10/24/supporting-blanket-impls-in-specialization/) proposes a specialization rule for Rust that considers type structure before other constraints, as in Carbon, though the details differ. - Rust has more orphan restrictions to avoid there being cases where it is ambiguous which impl should be selected. Carbon instead has picked a total ordering on type structures, picking one as higher priority even without one being more specific in the sense of only applying to a subset of types. ## Interface members with definitions Interfaces may provide definitions for members, such as a function body for an associated function or method or a value for an associated constant. If these definitions may be overridden in implementations, they are called "defaults." Otherwise they are called "final members." ### Interface defaults An interface may provide a default implementation of methods in terms of other methods in the interface. ``` interface Vector { fn Add[me: Self](b: Self) -> Self; fn Scale[me: Self](v: f64) -> Self; // Default definition of `Invert` calls `Scale`. fn Invert[me: Self]() -> Self { return me.Scale(-1.0); } } ``` An impl of that interface for a type may omit a definition of `Invert` to use the default, or provide a definition to override the default. Interface defaults are helpful for [evolution](#evolution), as well as reducing boilerplate. Defaults address the gap between the minimum necessary for a type to provide the desired functionality of an interface and the breadth of API that developers desire. As an example, in Rust the [iterator trait](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/iter/trait.Iterator.html) only has one required method but dozens of "provided methods" with defaults. Defaults may also be provided for associated constants, such as associated types, and interface parameters, using the `= ` syntax. ``` interface Add(Right:! Type = Self) { let Result:! Type = Self; fn DoAdd[me: Self](right: Right) -> Result; } impl String as Add() { // Right == Result == Self == String fn DoAdd[me: Self](right: Self) -> Self; } ``` Note that `Self` is a legal default value for an associated type or type parameter. In this case the value of those names is not determined until `Self` is, so `Add()` is equivalent to the constraint: ``` // Equivalent to Add() constraint AddDefault { extends Add(Self); } ``` Note also that the parenthesis are required after `Add`, even when all parameters are left as their default values. More generally, default expressions may reference other associated types or `Self` as parameters to type constructors. For example: ``` interface Iterator { let Element:! Type; let Pointer:! Type = Element*; } ``` Carbon does **not** support providing a default implementation of a required interface. ``` interface TotalOrder { fn TotalLess[me: Self](right: Self) -> Bool; // ❌ Illegal: May not provide definition // for required interface. impl PartialOrder { fn PartialLess[me: Self](right: Self) -> Bool { return me.TotalLess(right); } } } ``` The workaround for this restriction is to use a [blanket impl](#blanket-impls) instead: ``` interface TotalOrder { fn TotalLess[me: Self](right: Self) -> Bool; impl PartialOrder; } external impl [T:! TotalOrder] T as PartialOrder { fn PartialLess[me: Self](right: Self) -> Bool { return me.TotalLess(right); } } ``` Note that by the [orphan rule](#orphan-rule), this blanket impl must be defined in the same library as `PartialOrder`. **Comparison with other languages:** Rust supports specifying defaults for [methods](https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch10-02-traits.html#default-implementations), [interface parameters](https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch19-03-advanced-traits.html#default-generic-type-parameters-and-operator-overloading), and [associated constants](https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/items/associated-items.html#associated-constants-examples). Rust has found them valuable. ### `final` members As an alternative to providing a definition of an interface member as a default, members marked with the `final` keyword will not allow that definition to be overridden in impls. ``` interface TotalOrder { fn TotalLess[me: Self](right: Self) -> Bool; final fn TotalGreater[me: Self](right: Self) -> Bool { return right.TotalLess(me); } } class String { impl as TotalOrder { fn TotalLess[me: Self](right: Self) -> Bool { ... } // ❌ Illegal: May not provide definition of final // method `TotalGreater`. fn TotalGreater[me: Self](right: Self) -> Bool { ... } } } interface Add(T:! Type = Self) { // `AddWith` *always* equals `T` final let AddWith:! Type = T; // Has a *default* of `Self` let Result:! Type = Self; fn DoAdd[me: Self](right: AddWith) -> Result; } ``` There are a few reasons for this feature: - When overriding would be inappropriate. - Matching the functionality of non-virtual methods in base classes, so interfaces can be a replacement for inheritance. - Potentially reduce dynamic dispatch when using the interface in a [`DynPtr`](#dynamic-types). Note that this applies to associated entities, not interface parameters. ## Future work ### Dynamic types Generics provide enough structure to support runtime dispatch for values with types that vary at runtime, without giving up type safety. Both Rust and Swift have demonstrated the value of this feature. #### Runtime type parameters This feature is about allowing a function's type parameter to be passed in as a dynamic (non-generic) parameter. All values of that type would still be required to have the same type. #### Runtime type fields Instead of passing in a single type parameter to a function, we could store a type per value. This changes the data layout of the value, and so is a somewhat more invasive change. It also means that when a function operates on multiple values they could have different real types. ### Abstract return types This lets you return an anonymous type implementing an interface from a function. In Rust this is the [`impl Trait` return type](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/1522-conservative-impl-trait.html). In Swift, there are discussions about implementing this feature under the name "reverse generics" or "opaque result types": [1](https://forums.swift.org/t/improving-the-ui-of-generics/22814#heading--reverse-generics), [2](https://forums.swift.org/t/reverse-generics-and-opaque-result-types/21608), [3](https://forums.swift.org/t/se-0244-opaque-result-types/21252), [4](https://forums.swift.org/t/se-0244-opaque-result-types-reopened/22942), Swift is considering spelling this ` V` or `some Collection`. ### Evolution There are a collection of use cases for making different changes to interfaces that are already in use. These should be addressed either by describing how they can be accomplished with existing generics features, or by adding features. In addition, evolution from (C++ or Carbon) templates to generics needs to be supported and made safe. ### Testing The idea is that you would write tests alongside an interface that validate the expected behavior of any type implementing that interface. ### Operator overloading We will need a story for defining how an operation is overloaded for a type by implementing an interface for that type. ### Impls with state A feature we might consider where an `impl` itself can have state. ### Generic associated types and higher-ranked types This would be some way to express the requirement that there is a way to go from a type to an implementation of an interface parameterized by that type. #### Generic associated types Generic associated types are about when this is a requirement of an interface. These are also called "associated type constructors." #### Higher-ranked types Higher-ranked types are used to represent this requirement in a function signature. They can be [emulated using generic associated types](https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps//blog/2016/11/03/associated-type-constructors-part-2-family-traits/). ### Field requirements We might want to allow interfaces to express the requirement that any implementing type has a particular field. This would be to match the expressivity of inheritance, which can express "all subtypes start with this list of fields." ### Generic type specialization See [generic specialization](terminology.md#generic-specialization) for a description of what this might involve. ### Bridge for C++ customization points See details in [the goals document](goals.md#bridge-for-c-customization-points). ### Variadic arguments Some facility for allowing a function to generically take a variable number of arguments. ### Range constraints on generic integers We currently only support `where` clauses on type-of-types. We may want to also support constraints on generic integers. The constraint with the most expected value is the ability to do comparisons like `<`, or `>=`. For example, you might constrain the `N` member of [`NSpacePoint`](#associated-constants) using an expression like `PointT:! NSpacePoint where 2 <= .N and .N <= 3`. The concern here is supporting this at compile time with more benefit than complexity. For example, we probably don't want to support integer-range based types at runtime, and there are also concerns about reasoning about comparisons between multiple generic integer parameters. For example, if `J < K` and `K <= L`, can we call a function that requires `J < L`? There is also a secondary syntactic concern about how to write this kind of constraint on a parameter, as opposed to an associated type, as in `N:! u32 where ___ >= 2`. ### Separate declaration and definition of impl There is a desire to support a short declaration that a type implements an interface without giving a full definition of that implementation for API files. Everything needed for type checking is provided in the interface definition, except for the assignments to associated constants and types, and so those must be included in the declaration as well. ## References - [#553: Generics details part 1](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/553) - [#731: Generics details 2: adapters, associated types, parameterized interfaces](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/731) - [#818: Constraints for generics (generics details 3)](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/818) - [#931: Generic impls access (details 4)](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/931) - [#920: Generic parameterized impls (details 5)](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/920) - [#950: Generic details 6: remove facets](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/950) - [#983: Generic details 7: final impls](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/983) - [#990: Generics details 8: interface default and final members](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/990) - [#1013: Generics: Set associated constants using where constraints](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/1013)