Home Explore Help
Sign In
tomteb
/
carbon-lang
1
0
Fork 0
Files Issues 0 Pull Requests 0 Wiki
Tree: 05efb278c2
Branches Tags
carbon-lang
/
docs
/
design
/
generics
/
details.md

details.md 83 KB
History Raw

Generics: Details

Table of contents

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 an deduced argument (also see deduced argument 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 model section below.

In addition to function pointer members, interfaces can include any constants that belong to a type. For example, the type's size (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:

The function can decide whether that type argument is passed in statically (basically generating a separate function body for every different type passed in) by using the "generic argument" syntax (:!, see the generics section below) or dynamically using the regular argument syntax (just a colon, :, see the runtime type parameters section below). Either way, the interface contains enough information to type and definition check 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 how the caller of the function can produce a value with the right type. Let's say the user has a value of type Song, and of course songs have all sorts of functionality. If we want a Song to be printed using the PrintToStdout function, it needs to implement the ConvertibleToString interface. Note that we don't say that Song is of type ConvertibleToString but instead that it has a "facet type". This means there is another type, called Song as ConvertibleToString, with the following properties:

  • Song as ConvertibleToString has the same data representation as Song.
  • Song as ConvertibleToString is an implementation of the interface ConvertibleToString. The functions of Song as ConvertibleToString are just implementations of the names and signatures defined in the ConvertibleToString interface, like ToString, and not the functions defined on Song values.
  • Carbon will implicitly convert values from type Song to type Song as ConvertibleToString when calling a function that can only accept types of type ConvertibleToString.
  • In the normal case where the implementation of ConvertibleToString for Song is not defined as external, every member of Song as ConvertibleToString is also a member of Song. This includes members of ConvertibleToString that are not explicitly named in the impl definition but have defaults.
  • You may access the ToString function for a Song value w by writing a qualified function call, like w.(ConvertibleToString.ToString)(). The same effect may be achieved by casting, as in (w as (Song as ConvertibleToString)).ToString(). This qualified syntax is available whether or not the implementation is defined as external.
  • If other interfaces are implemented for Song, they are also implemented for Song as ConvertibleToString. The only thing that changes when casting a Song w to Song as ConvertibleToString are the names that are accessible without using the qualification syntax. A Song as ConvertibleToString value can likewise be cast to a Song; a Song acts just like another facet type for these purposes.

We define these facet types (alternatively, interface implementations) either with the type, with the interface, or somewhere else where Carbon can be guaranteed to see when needed. For more on this, see the implementing interfaces section below.

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 below.

Interfaces

An 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: Double) -> Self;
}

The syntax here is to match how the same members would be defined in a type. Each declaration in the interface defines an 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 specifically facet types, by which we mean types that are declared as specifically implementing exactly this interface, and which provide definitions for all the functions (and other members) declared in the interface.

Implementing interfaces

Carbon interfaces are "nominal", which means that types explicitly describe how they implement interfaces. An "impl" 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: Double;
  var y: Double;
  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: Double) -> 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);

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. In particular, see the alternatives considered.

Facet type

The impl definition defines a facet type: Point as Vector. While the API of Point includes the two fields x and y along with the Add and Scale methods, the API of Point as Vector only has the Add and Scale methods of the Vector interface. The facet type Point as Vector is compatible with Point, meaning their data representations are the same, so we allow you to convert between the two freely:

var a: Point = {.x = 1.0, .y = 2.0};
// `a` has `Add` and `Scale` methods:
a.Add(a.Scale(2.0));

// Cast from Point implicitly
var b: Point as Vector = a;
// `b` has `Add` and `Scale` methods:
b.Add(b.Scale(2.0));

// Will also implicitly convert when calling functions:
fn F(c: Point as Vector, d: Point) {
  d.Add(c.Scale(2.0));
}
F(a, b);

// Explicit casts
var z: Point as Vector = (a as (Point as Vector)).Scale(3.0);
z.Add(b);
var w: Point = z as Point;

These conversions change which names are exposed in the type's API, but as much as possible we don't want the meaning of any given name to change. Instead we want these casts to simply change the subset of names that are visible.

Note: In general the above is written assuming that casts are written "a as T" where a is a value and T is the type to cast to. When we write Point as Vector, the value Point is a type, and Vector is a type of a type, or a "type-of-type".

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, so for example Point as Vector is well defined.

We don't expect users to ordinarily name facet types explicitly in source code. Instead, values are implicitly converted to a facet type as part of calling a generic function, as described in the Generics section.

Implementing multiple interfaces

To implement more than one interface when defining a type, simply include an impl block per interface.

class Point {
  var x: Double;
  var y: Double;
  impl as Vector {
    fn Add[me: Self](b: Self) -> Self { ... }
    fn Scale[me: Self](v: Double) -> 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 this.name; }
    // ...
  }
  impl as GameUnit {
    // Possible syntax for defining `GameUnit.Name` as
    // the same as `Icon.Name`:
    alias Name = Icon.Name;
    // ...
  }
}

External impl

Interfaces may also be implemented for a type externally, by using the external impl construct which takes the name of an existing type:

class Point2 {
  var x: Double;
  var y: Double;
}

external impl Point2 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: Double) -> Self {
    return {.x = a.x * v, .y = a.y * v};
  }
}

References: The external interface implementation syntax was decided in proposal #553. In particular, see the alternatives considered.

The external impl statement is allowed to be defined in a different library from Point2, restricted by the coherence/orphan rules that ensure that the implementation of an interface won'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 (Point2 here). This (at least partially) addresses the expression problem.

We don't want the API of Point2 to change based on what is imported though. So the external impl statement does not add the interface's methods to the type. It would be particularly bad if two different libraries implemented interfaces with conflicting names both affected the API of a single type. The result is 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.

On the other hand, if we convert to the facet type, those methods do become visible:

var a: Point2 = {.x = 1.0, .y = 2.0};
// `a` does *not* have `Add` and `Scale` methods:
// ❌ Error: a.Add(a.Scale(2.0));

// Convert from Point2 implicitly
var b: Point2 as Vector = a;
// `b` does have `Add` and `Scale` methods:
b.Add(b.Scale(2.0));

fn F(c: Point2 as Vector) {
  // Can call `Add` and `Scale` on `c` even though we can't on `a`.
  c.Add(c.Scale(2.0));
}
F(a);

You might intentionally 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:

class Point3 {
  var x: Double;
  var y: Double;
  fn Add[me: Self](b: Self) -> Self {
    return {.x = a.x + b.x, .y = a.y + b.y};
  }
}

external impl Point3 as Vector {
  alias Add = Point3.Add;  // Syntax TBD
  fn Scale[me: Self](v: Double) -> Self {
    return {.x = a.x * v, .y = a.y * v};
  }
}

With this definition, Point3 includes Add in its API but not Scale, while Point3 as Vector includes both. This maintains the property that you can determine the API of a type by looking at its definition. In this case, the external impl may be defined lexically inside the scope of the class.

class Point3 {
  var x: Double;
  var y: Double;
  fn Add[me: Self](b: Self) -> Self {
    return {.x = a.x + b.x, .y = a.y + b.y};
  }
  // Type before `as` is optional and defaults to the current class.
  external impl as Vector {
    alias Add = Point3.Add;  // Syntax TBD
    fn Scale[me: Self](v: Double) -> Self {
      return {.x = a.x * v, .y = a.y * v};
    }
  }
}

// OR:

class Point3 {
  var x: Double;
  var y: Double;
  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: Double) -> Self {
      return {.x = a.x * v, .y = a.y * v};
    }
  }
  alias Add = Vector.Add;  // Syntax TBD
}

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 does this as an "extension" of the original type. In Rust, all implementations are external as in this example. 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 Point2 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 statement:

var p1: Point2 = {.x = 1.0, .y = 2.0};
var p2: Point2 = {.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 Point2. So if there was another interface Drawable with method Draw defined in the Plot package also implemented for Point2, as in:

package Plot;
import Points;

interface Drawable {
  fn Draw[me: Self]();
}

external impl Points.Point2 as Drawable { ... }

You could access Draw with a qualified name:

import Plot;
import Points;

var p: Points.Point2 = {.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.

Generics

Now let us write a function that can accept values of any type that has implemented the Vector interface:

fn AddAndScaleGeneric[T:! Vector](a: T, b: T, s: Double) -> 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, that is it must be known to the caller but we will only use the information present in the signature of the function to typecheck 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.

When we call AddAndScaleGeneric, we need to determine the value of T to use when passed values with type Point. Since T has type Vector, the compiler simply sets T to Point as Vector. This cast erases all of the API of Point and substitutes the api of Vector, without changing anything about the data representation. It acts like we called this non-generic function, found by setting T to Point as Vector:

fn AddAndScaleForPointAsVector(
      a: Point as Vector, b: Point as Vector, s: Double)
      -> Point as Vector {
  return a.Add(b).Scale(s);
}
// May still be called with Point arguments, due to implicit conversions.
// Similarly the return value can be implicitly converted to a Point.
var v2: Point = AddAndScaleForPointAsVector(a, w, 2.5);

Since Point implements Vector inline, Point also has definitions for Add and Scale:

fn AddAndScaleForPoint(a: Point, b: Point, s: Double) -> Point {
  return a.Add(b).Scale(s);
}

AddAndScaleForPoint(a, w, 2.5);

However, for another type implementing Vector but out-of-line using an external impl statement, such as Point2, the situation is different:

fn AddAndScaleForPoint2(a: Point2, b: Point2, s: Double) -> Point2 {
  // ❌ ERROR: `Point2` doesn't have `Add` or `Scale` methods.
  return a.Add(b).Scale(s);
}

Even though Point2 doesn't have Add and Scale methods, it still implements Vector and so can still call AddAndScaleGeneric:

var a2: Point2 = {.x = 1.0, .y = 2.0};
var w2: Point2 = {.x = 3.0, .y = 4.0};
var v3: Point2 = AddAndScaleGeneric(a, w, 2.5);

References: The :! syntax was accepted in proposal #676.

Model

The underlying model here is interfaces are type-of-types, in particular, the type of facet types:

  • Interfaces are types of witness tables
  • Facet types (defined by Impls) 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 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: Double) -> Self;
}

The impl of Vector for Point 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: Double) -> 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 by making the witness table an explicit argument to the function:

fn AddAndScaleGeneric
    (t:! Vector, a: t.Self, b: t.Self, s: Double) -> 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.

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", 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:

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 and facet types

A 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 may be converted to a given type-of-type. The result of converting a type T to a type-of-type I (written T as I) is called a facet type, you might say a facet type F is the I facet of T if F is T as I. The API of F is determined by the set of names in the type-of-type.

This general structure of type-of-types holds not just for interfaces, but others described in the rest of this document.

Structural interfaces

If the nominal interfaces discussed above are the building blocks for type-of-types, structural interfaces describe how they may be composed together. Unlike nominal interfaces, the name of a structural interface is not a part of its value. Two different structural interfaces with the same definition are equivalent even if they have different names. This is because types don't explicitly specify which structural interfaces they implement, types automatically implement any structural interfaces they can satisfy.

A structural interface 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.

structural interface 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 users do directly define many structural interfaces, 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:

structural interface 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 no 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.

In general we should support the same kinds of declarations in a structural interface definitions as in an interface. Generally speaking declarations in one kind of interface make sense in the other, and there is an analogy between them. If an interface I has (non-alias) declarations X, Y, and Z, like so:

interface I {
  X;
  Y;
  Z;
}

(Here, X could be something like fn F[me: Self]().)

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 structural interface, S:

structural interface S {
  X;
  Y;
  Z;
}

would match any type with definitions for X, Y, and Z directly:

class ImplementsS {
  // ...
  X { ... }
  Y { ... }
  Z { ... }
}

Subtyping between type-of-types

There is a subtyping relationship between type-of-types that allows you to call one generic function from another as long as you are calling a function with a subset of your requirements.

Given a generic type T with type-of-type I1, it may be implicitly converted to a type-of-type I2, resulting in T as I2, as long as the requirements of I1 are a superset of the requirements of I2. Further, given a value x of type T, it can be implicitly converted to T as I2. For example:

interface Printable { fn Print[me: Self](); }
interface Renderable { fn Draw[me: Self](); }

structural interface PrintAndRender {
  impl as Printable;
  impl as Renderable;
}
structural interface 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`).
  // This calls `PrintIt` with `T2 == T1 as JustPrint` and
  // `x2 == x1 as T2`.
  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:
structural interface {
  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:
structural interface {
  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, or by defining a structural interface explicitly and renaming the methods:

structural interface 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 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. See #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:
structural interface {
  impl as Printable;
  impl as Renderable;
  alias Print = Printable.Print;
}

// `Renderable [&] EndOfGame` is syntactic sugar for this type-of-type:
structural interface {
  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, 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.

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.

Interface requiring other interfaces

Some interfaces will depend on other interfaces being implemented for the same type. For example, in C++, the Container concept 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. For consistency we will use the same semantics and syntax as we do for structural interfaces:

interface Equatable { fn Equals[me: Self](that: 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](that: Self) -> bool { ... } }
}
var x: Iota;
DoAdvanceAndEquals(x);

Like with structural interfaces, 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.

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](that: Self) -> bool { ... }
  }
}
var y: Song;
DoHashAndEquals(y);

This allows us to say that Hashable "extends" 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](that: 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). 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:

To write an interface extending multiple interfaces, use multiple extends declarations. For example, the BinaryInteger protocol in Swift inherits from CustomStringConvertible, Hashable, Numeric, and Stridable. The SetAlgeba protocol 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) 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 structural interfaces

The extends declaration makes sense with the same meaning inside a structural interface, and so is also supported.

interface Media {
  fn Play[me: Self]();
}
interface Job {
  fn Run[me: Self]();
}

structural interface 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
structural interface 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 structural interface:

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 you get an implementation of Equatable by implementing Hashable when Hashable extends Equatable. This provides a tool useful for evolution.

Conversely, an interface can extend a structural interface:

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:

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 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.

Use case: overload resolution

Implementing an extended interface is an example of a more specific match for lookup resolution. 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](that: 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.

Type compatibility

None of the conversions between facet types change the implementation of any interfaces for a type. So the result of a conversion does not depend on the sequence of conversions you perform, just the original type and the final type-of-type. That is, these types will all be equal:

  • T as I
  • (T as A) as I
  • (((T as A) as B) as C) as I

Now consider a type with a generic type parameter, like a hash map type:

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:

var hm: HashMap(String, i32) = ...;
var result: Optional(i32) = hm.Find("Needle");

Since the Find function is generic, it can only use the capabilities that HashMap requires of KeyT and ValueT. This implies that the implementation of HashMap(String, i32).Find and HashMap(String as Hashable, i32).Find are the same. In fact, we could substitute any facet of String, and Find would still use String as Hashable in its implementation. So these types:

  • HashMap(String, i32)
  • HashMap(String as Hashable, i32 as Type)
  • HashMap(String as Printable, i32)
  • HashMap((String as Printable & Hashable) as Hashable, i32)

are also facets of each other, and Carbon can freely allow casts and implicit conversions between them.

This means we don't generally need to worry about getting the wrong facet type as the argument for a generic type. This means we don't get type mismatches when calling functions as in this example, where the type parameters have different constraints than the type requires:

fn PrintValue
    [KeyT:! Printable & Hashable, ValueT:! Printable]
    (map: HashMap(KeyT, ValueT), key: KeyT) { ... }

var m: HashMap(String, i32) = ...;
PrintValue(m, "key");

However, those types are still different. A caller of Find observes that its signature reflects the actual type parameters passed to HashMap, not their projection onto the Hashable or Type facets. In particular, the return type of hm.Find is Optional(i32), not Optional(i32 as Type). (Incidentally, Optional(i32) and Optional(i32 as Type) are also facets of each other.)

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. We therefore provide a way to create new types compatible with existing types with different APIs, in particular with different interface implementations, by adapting them:

interface Printable {
  fn Print[me: Self]();
}
interface Comparable {
  fn Less[me: Self](that: Self) -> bool;
}
class Song {
  impl as Printable { fn Print[me: Self]() { ... } }
}
adapter SongByTitle for Song {
  impl as Comparable {
    fn Less[me: Self](that: Self) -> bool { ... }
  }
}
adapter FormattedSong for Song {
  impl as Printable { fn Print[me: Self]() { ... } }
}
adapter FormattedSongByTitle for Song {
  impl as Printable = FormattedSong as Printable;
  impl as Comparable = SongByTitle as Comparable;
}

This allows us 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 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 (unlike between a type and one of its facet types / impls).
  • For the purposes of generics, we only need to support adding interface implementations. But this adapter feature could be used more generally, such as to add methods.

Inside an adapter, the Self type matches the adapter. Members of the original type may be accessed like any other facet type; either by a cast:

adapter SongByTitle for Song {
  impl as Comparable {
    fn Less[me: Self](that: Self) -> bool {
      return (this as Song).Title() < (that as Song).Title();
    }
  }
}

or using qualified names:

adapter SongByTitle for Song {
  impl as Comparable {
    fn Less[me: Self](that: Self) -> bool {
      return this.(Song.Title)() < that.(Song.Title)();
    }
  }
}

Open question: As an alternative to:

impl as Printable = FormattedSong as Printable;

we could allow users to write:

impl as Printable = FormattedSong;

This would remove ceremony that the compiler doesn't need. The concern is whether it makes sense or is a category error. In this example, is FormattedSong, a type, a suitable value to provide when asking for a Printable implementation? An argument for this terser syntax is that the implicit conversion is legal in other contexts:

// ✅ Legal implicit conversion
var v:! Printable = FormattedSong;

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 and here. 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 as well. Haskell's feature doesn't directly support reusing implementations either, but the most popular compiler provides it as an extension.

Adapter compatibility

The framework from the type compatibility section allows us to evaluate when we can convert between two different arguments to a parameterized type. Consider three compatible types, all of which implement Hashable:

class Song {
  impl as Hashable { ... }
  impl as Printable { ... }
}
adapter SongHashedByTitle for Song {
  impl as Hashable { ... }
}
adapter PlayableSong for Song {
  impl as Hashable = Song as Hashable;
  impl as Media { ... }
}

Observe that Song as Hashable is different from SongHashedByTitle as Hashable, since they have different definitions of the Hashable interface even though they are compatible types. However Song as Hashable and PlayableSong as Hashable are almost the same. In addition to using the same data representation, they both implement one interface, Hashable, and use the same implementation for that interface. The one difference between them is that Song as Hashable may be implicitly converted to Song, which implements interface Printable, and PlayableSong as Hashable may be implicitly converted to PlayableSong, which implements interface Media. This means that it is safe to convert between HashMap(Song, i32) and HashMap(PlayableSong, i32) (though maybe only with an explicit cast), since the implementation of all the methods will use the same implementation of the Hashable interface. But HashMap(SongHashedByTitle, i32) is incompatible. This is a relief, 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, adaptor 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. 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 as Printable;

  // 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 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 { ... }

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,));

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, 2, 3). 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.

Application: 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.

interface Comparable {
  fn Less[me: Self](that: Self) -> bool;
}
adapter ComparableFromDifferenceFn
    (T:! Type, Difference:! fnty(T, T)->i32) for T {
  impl as Comparable {
    fn Less[me: Self](that: Self) -> bool {
      return Difference(this, that) < 0;
    }
  }
}
class IntWrapper {
  var x: i32;
  fn Difference(this: Self, that: Self) {
    return that.x - this.x;
  }
  impl as Comparable =
      ComparableFromDifferenceFn(IntWrapper, Difference)
      as Comparable;
}

Associated constants

In addition to associated methods, we allow other kinds of associated entities. 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));
}

Implementations of NSpacePoint for different types might have different values for N:

class Point2D {
  impl as NSpacePoint {
    let N:! i32 = 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 {
    let N:! i32 = 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)) { ... }
  }
}

And 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.

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 declaration syntax, associated class functions are written:

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.

Associated types

Associated types are associated entities 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 above in the "Interfaces" section. 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);

  impl as StackAssociatedType {
    // Set the associated type `ElementType` to `T`.
    let ElementType:! Type = T;
    fn Push[addr me: Self*](value: ElementType) {
      this->Insert(this->End(), value);
    }
    fn Pop[addr me: Self*]() -> ElementType {
      var pos: IteratorType = this->End();
      Assert(pos != this->Begin());
      --pos;
      returned var ret: ElementType = *pos;
      this->Remove(pos);
      return var;
    }
    fn IsEmpty[addr me: Self*]() -> bool {
      return this->Begin() == this->End();
    }
  }
}

Alternatives considered: See other syntax options considered for specifying associated types. In particular, it was deemed that Swift's approach of inferring the associated type from method signatures in the impl 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;
}

var my_array: DynamicArray(i32) = (1, 2, 3);
// PeekAtTopOfStack's `StackType` is set to
// `DynamicArray(i32) as StackAssociatedType`.
// `StackType.ElementType` becomes `i32`.
Assert(PeekAtTopOfStack(my_array) == 3);

Associated types can also be implemented using a member type.

interface Container {
  let IteratorType:! Iterator;
  ...
}

class DynamicArray(T:! Type) {
  ...
  impl as Container {
    class IteratorType { ... }
    ...
  }
}

For context, see "Interface type parameters and associated types" in the generics terminology document.

Comparison with other languages: Both Rust and Swift support associated types.

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. To write a parameterized version 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) {
      this->fruit.Push(value);
    }
    fn Pop[addr me: Self*]() -> Fruit {
      return this->fruit.Pop();
    }
    fn IsEmpty[addr me: Self*]() -> bool {
      return this->fruit.IsEmpty();
    }
  }
  impl as StackParameterized(Veggie) {
    fn Push[addr me: Self*](value: Veggie) {
      this->veggie.Push(value);
    }
    fn Pop[addr me: Self*]() -> Veggie {
      return this->veggie.Pop();
    }
    fn IsEmpty[addr me: Self*]() -> bool {
      return this->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 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 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 more generally. Example:

interface EquatableWith(T:! Type) {
  fn Equals[me: Self](that: 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.

Context: See interface type parameters in the terminology doc.

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, you need to be sure that the interface parameters will 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 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" and uses them for operator overloading. Note that Rust further supports defaults for those type parameters (such as Self).

Rust uses the term "type parameters" 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, 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) 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.
  • Allowing the impl to be defined with either the interface or the type addresses the expression problem.

Note that the rules for specialization do allow there to be more than one impl to be defined for a type, as long as one can unambiguously be picked as most specific.

References: Implementation coherence is defined in terminology, and is a goal for Carbon. More detail can be found in this appendix with the rationale and alternatives considered.

Parameterized structural interfaces

We should also allow the structural interface construct to support parameters. Parameters would work the same way as for regular, that is nominal or non-structural, interfaces.

Future work

Constraints

We will need to be able to express constraints beyond "type implements these interfaces."

Conditional conformance

The problem we are trying to solve here is expressing that we have an impl of some interface for some type, but only if some additional type restrictions are met.

Parameterized impls

Also known as "blanket impls", these are when you have an impl definition that is parameterized so it applies to more than a single type and interface combination.

Lookup resolution and specialization

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.

Other constraints as type-of-types

There are some constraints that we will naturally represent as named type-of-types that the user can specify.

Sized types and type-of-types

Like Rust, we may have types that have values whose size is only determined at runtime. Many functions may want to restrict to types with known size.

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.

In Swift, there are discussions about implementing this feature under the name "reverse generics" or "opaque result types": 1, 2, 3, 4, Swift is considering spelling this <V: Collection> V or some Collection.

Interface defaults

Rust supports specifying defaults for interface parameters, methods, associated constants. We should support this too. It is helpful for 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 user's desire.

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.

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 for a description of what this might involve.

Bridge for C++ customization points

See details in the goals document.

Variadic arguments

Some facility for allowing a function to generically take a variable number of arguments.

References