On this page:
21.1 Parameterized Types
21.2 Making Parameters Explicit
21.3 Rank-1 Polymorphism
21.4 Interpreting Rank-1 Polymorphism as Desugaring
21.5 Alternate Implementations
21.6 Relational Parametricity

21 Parametric Polymorphism

    21.1 Parameterized Types

    21.2 Making Parameters Explicit

    21.3 Rank-1 Polymorphism

    21.4 Interpreting Rank-1 Polymorphism as Desugaring

    21.5 Alternate Implementations

    21.6 Relational Parametricity

Which of these is the same?
  • List<String>

  • List<String>

  • List<String>

Actually, none of these is quite the same. But the first and third are very alike, because the first is in Java and the third in ML, whereas the second, in C++, is different. All clear? No? Good, read on!

21.1 Parameterized Types

Consider what would be the intended type of map in Pyret:

((A -> B), List<A> -> List<B>)

This says that for all types A and B, map consumes a function that generates B values from A values, and a list of A values, and generates the corresponding list of B values. Here, A and B are not concrete types; rather, each is a type variable (in our terminology, these should properly be called “type identifiers” because they don’t change within the course of an instantiation; however, we will stick to the traditional terminology).

A different way to understand this is that there is actually an infinite family of map functions. For instance, there is a map that has this type:

((Number -> String), List<Number> -> List<String>)

and another one of this type (nothing says the types have to be base types):

((Number -> (Number -> Number)), List<Number> -> List<(Number -> Number)>)

and yet another one of this type (nothing says A and B can’t be the same):

((String -> String), List<String> -> List<String>)

and so on. Because they have different types, they would need different names: map-num-str, map-num-num-to-num, map-str-str, and so on. But that would make them different functions, so we’d have to always refer to a specific map rather than each of the generic one.

Obviously, it is impossible to load all these functions into our standard library: there’s an infinite number of these! We’d rather have a way to obtain each of these functions on demand. Our naming convention offers a hint: it is as if map takes two type parameters in addition to its two regular value ones. Given the pair of types as arguments, we can then obtain a map that is customized to that particular type. This kind of parameterization over types is called parametric polymorphism.Not to be confused with the “polymorphism” of objects, which we will discuss separately [REF].

21.2 Making Parameters Explicit

In other words, we’re effectively saying that map is actually a function of perhaps four arguments, two of them types and two of them actual values (a function and a list). In a language with explicit types, we might try to write

fun map(A :: ???, B :: ???, f :: (A -> B), l :: List<A>) -> List<B>: ...;

but this raises many questions:
  • What goes in place of the ???? These are the types that are going to take the place of A and B on an actual use. But if A and B are bound to types, then what is their type?

  • Do we really want to call map with four arguments every time we invoke it?

  • Do we want to be passing types—which are static—at the same time as dynamic values?

  • If these are types but they are only provided at run-time invocation, how can we type-check clients, who need to know what kind of list they are getting?

The answers to these questions actually lead to a very rich space of polymorphic type systems, most of which we will not explore here.

Observe that once we start parameterizing, more code than we expect ends up being parameterized. For instance, consider the type of the humble link. Its type really is parametric over the type of values in the list (even though it doesn’t actually depend on those values!—more on that in a bit (Relational Parametricity)) so every use of link must be instantiated at the appropriate type. For that matter, even empty must be instantiated to create an empty list of the correct type! Of course, Java and C++ programmers are familiar with this pain.

21.3 Rank-1 Polymorphism

Instead, we will limit ourselves to one particularly useful and tractable point in this space, which is the type system of Standard ML, of earlier versions of Haskell, roughly that of Java and C# with generics, and roughly that obtained using templates in C++. This language defines what is called predicative, rank-1, or prenex polymorphism.

We first divide the world of types into two groups. The first group consists of the type language we’ve used until now, but extended to include type variables; these are called monotypes. The second group, known as polytypes, consists of parameterized types; these are conventionally written with a ∀ prefix, a list of type variables, and then a monotype expression that might use these variables. Thus, the type of map would be:

∀ A, B : ((A -> B), List<A> -> List<B>)

Since “∀” is the logic symbol for “for all”, you would read this as: “for all types A and B, the type of map is...”.

In rank-1 polymorphism, the type variables can only be substituted with monotypes. (Furthermore, these can only be concrete types, because there would be nothing left to substitute any remaining type variables.) As a result, we obtain a clear separation between the type variable-parameters and regular parameters. We don’t need to provide a “type annotation” for the type variables because we know precisely what kind of thing they can be. This produces a relatively clean language that still offers considerable expressive power.Impredicative languages erase the distinction between monotypes and polytypes, so a type variable can be instantiated with another polymorphic type.

Observe that because type variables can only be replaced with monotypes, they are all independent of each other. As a result, all type parameters can be brought to the front of the parameter list. In Pyret, for instance, the following defines a polymorphic identity function:
<pyret-poly-id> ::=

    fun<T> id(x :: T) -> T: x;

where T is the type parameter. At every use, we separate the provision of type parameters from value parameters by using <...> for the type parameters and (...) for the values. In general, then, we can write types in the form ∀ tv, ... : t where the tv are type variables and t is a monotype (that might refer to those variables). This justifies not only the syntax but also the name “prenex”. It will prove to also be useful in the implementation.

21.4 Interpreting Rank-1 Polymorphism as Desugaring

The simplest implementation of this feature is to view it as a form of desugaring: this is essentially the interpretation taken by C++. (Put differently, because C++ has a macro system in the form of templates, by a happy accident it obtains a form of rank-1 polymorphism through the use of templates.) Consider the abve polymorphic identity function (<pyret-poly-id>). Suppose the implementation is that, on every provision of a type to the name, it replaces the type variable with the given type in the body: given a concrete type for T, it yields a procedure of one argument of type (T -> T) (where T is appropriately substituted). Thus we can instantiate id at many different types—

id-num = id<Number> id-str = id<String>

thereby obtaining identity functions at each of those types:

check: id-num(5) is 5 id-str("x") is "x" end

In contrast, expressions like

id-num("x") id-str(5)

will, as we would expect, fail to type-check (rather than fail at run-time).

However, this approach has two important limitations.

  1. Let’s try to define a recursive polymorphic function, such as filter. Earlier we have said that we ought to instantiate every single polymorphic value (such as even cons and empty) with types, but to keep our code concise we’ll focus just on type parameters for filter. Here’s the code:

    fun<T> filter(pred :: (T -> Bool), l :: List<T>) -> List<T>: cases (List) l: | empty => empty | link(f, r) => if pred(f): link(f, filter<T>(pred, r)) else: filter<T>(pred, r); end end

    Observe that at the recursive uses of filter, we must instantiate it with the appropriate type.

    This is a perfectly good definition. There’s just one problem. If we try to use it—e.g.,

    filter-num = filter<Number>

    the implementation will not terminate. This is because the desugarer is repeatedly trying to make new copies of the code of filter at each recursive call.


    If, in contrast, we define a local helper function that performs the recursion, this problem can be made to disappear. Can you figure out that version?

  2. Consider two instantiations of the identity function. They would necessarily be different because they are two different pieces of code residing at different locations in memory.Indeed, the use of parametric polymorphism in C++ is notorious for creating code bloat. However, all this duplication is unnecessary! There’s absolutely nothing in the body of id, for instance, that actually depends on the type of the argument. Indeed, the entire infinite family of id functions can share just one implementation. The simple desugaring strategy fails to provide this.

In other words, the desugaring based strategy, which is essentially an implementation by substitution, has largely the same problems we saw earlier with regards to substitution as an implementation of parameter instantiation (From Substitution to Environments). However, in other cases substitution also gives us a ground truth for what we expect as the program’s behavior. The same will be true with polymorphism, as we will soon see.

Observe that one virtue to the desugaring strategy is that it does not require our type checker to “know” about polymorphism. Rather, the core type language can continue to be monomorphic, and all the (rank-1) polymorphism is handled entirely through expansion. This offers a cheap strategy for adding polymorphism to a language, though—as C++ shows—it also introduces significant overheads.

Finally, though we have only focused on functions, the preceding discussion applies equally well to data structures.

21.5 Alternate Implementations

There are other implementation strategies that don’t suffer from these problems. We won’t go into them here, but the essence is to memoize ([REF]) expansion. Because we can be certain that, for a given set of type parameters, we will always get the same typed body, we never need to instantiate a polymorphic function at the same type twice. This avoids the infinite loop. If we type-check the instantiated body once, we can avoid checking at other instantiations of the same type (because the body will not have changed). Furthermore, we do not need to retain the instantiated sources: once we have checked the expanded program, we can dispose of the expanded terms and retain just one copy at run-time. This avoids all the problems discussed in the pure desugaring strategy shown above, while retaining the benefits.

Actually, we are being a little too glib. One of the benefits of static types is that they enable us to pick more precise run-time representations. For instance, in most languages a static type can tell us whether we have a 32-bit or 64-bit number, or for that matter a 32-bit value or a 1-bit value (effectively, a boolean). A compiler can then generate specialized code for each representation, taking advantage of how the bits are laid out (for example, 32 booleans can use a packed representation to fit into a single 32-bit word). Thus, after type-checking at each used type, the polymorphic instantiator may keep track of all the special types at which a function or data structure was used, and provide this information to the compiler for code-generation. This will then result in several copies of the function, but only as many as those for which the compiler can generate distinct, efficient representations—which is usually fixed, and far fewer than the total number of types a program can use. Furthermore, the decision to make these copies reflects a space-time tradeoff.

21.6 Relational Parametricity

There’s one last detail we must address regarding polymorphism.

We earlier said that a function like cons doesn’t depend on the specific values of its arguments. This is also true of map, filter, and so on. When map and filter want to operate on individual elements, they take as a parameter another function which in turn is responsible for making decisions about how to treat the elements; map and filter themselves simply obey their parameter functions.

One way to “test” whether this is true is to substitute some different values in the argument list, and a correspondingly different parameter function. That is, imagine we have a relation between two sets of values; we convert the list elements according to the relation, and the parameter function as well. The question is, will the output from map and filter also be predictable by the relation? If, for some input, this was not true of the output of map, then it must be that map somehow affected the value itself, not just letting the function do it. But in fact this won’t happen for map, or indeed most of the standard polymorphic functions.

Functions that obey this relational rule are called relationally parametricRead Wadler’s Theorems for Free! and Reynolds’s Types, Abstraction and Parametric Polymorphism.. This is another very powerful property that types give us, because they tell us there is a strong limit on the kinds of operations such polymorphic functions can perform: essentially, that they can drop, duplicate, and rearrange elements, but not directly inspect and make decisions on them.

At first this sounds very impressive (and it is!), but on inspection you might realize this doesn’t square with your experience. In Java, for instance, a polymorphic method can still use instanceof to check which particular kind of value it obtained at run-time, and change its behavior accordingly. Such a method would not be relationally parametric!On the Web, you will often find this property described as the inability of a function to inspect the argument—which is not quite right. In fact, relational parametricity can equally be viewed as a statement of the weakness of the language: that it permits only a very limited set of operations. (You could still inspect the type—but not act upon what you learned, which makes the inspection pointless. Therefore, a run-time system that wants to simulate relational parametricity would have to remove operations like instanceof as well as various proxies to it: for instance, adding 1 to a value and catching exceptions would reveal whether the value is a number.) Nevertheless, it is a very elegant and surprising result, and shows the power of program reasoning possible with rich type systems.