On this page:
32.1 Interpreting Objects
32.2 Objects by Desugaring
32.2.1 Objects as Named Collections
32.2.2 Constructors
32.2.3 State
32.2.4 Private Members
32.2.5 Static Members
32.2.6 Objects with Self-Reference Self-Reference Using Mutation Self-Reference Without Mutation
32.2.7 Dynamic Dispatch
32.3 Member Access Design Space
32.4 What (Goes In) Else?
32.4.1 Classes
32.4.2 Prototypes
32.4.3 Multiple Inheritance
32.4.4 Super-Duper!
32.4.5 Mixins and Traits
32.5 Object Classification and Object Equality
32.6 Types for Objects
32.6.1 Subtyping Subtyping Functions Subtyping and Information Hiding Implementing Subtyping
32.6.2 Types for Self-Reference
32.6.3 Nominal Types

32 Objects: Interpretation and Types

    32.1 Interpreting Objects

    32.2 Objects by Desugaring

      32.2.1 Objects as Named Collections

      32.2.2 Constructors

      32.2.3 State

      32.2.4 Private Members

      32.2.5 Static Members

      32.2.6 Objects with Self-Reference Self-Reference Using Mutation Self-Reference Without Mutation

      32.2.7 Dynamic Dispatch

    32.3 Member Access Design Space

    32.4 What (Goes In) Else?

      32.4.1 Classes

      32.4.2 Prototypes

      32.4.3 Multiple Inheritance

      32.4.4 Super-Duper!

      32.4.5 Mixins and Traits

    32.5 Object Classification and Object Equality

    32.6 Types for Objects

      32.6.1 Subtyping Subtyping Functions Subtyping and Information Hiding Implementing Subtyping

      32.6.2 Types for Self-Reference

      32.6.3 Nominal Types

When a language admits functions as values, it provides developers the most natural way to represent a unit of computation. Suppose a developer wants to parameterize some function f. Any language lets f be parameterized by passive data, such as numbers and strings. But it is often attractive to parameterize it over active data: a datum that can compute an answer, perhaps in response to some information. Furthermore, the function passed to f can—assuming lexically-scoped functions—refer to data from the caller without those data having to be revealed to f, thus providing a foundation for security and privacy. Thus, lexically-scoped functions are central to the design of many secure programming techniques.

While a function is a splendid thing, it suffers from excessive terseness. Sometimes we might want multiple functions to all close over to the same shared data; the sharing especially matters if some of the functions mutate it and expect the others to see the result of those mutations. In such cases, it becomes unwieldly to send just a single function as a parameter; it is more useful to send a group of functions. The recipient then needs a way to choose between the different functions in the group. This grouping of functions, and the means to select one from the group, is the essence of an object. We are therefore perfectly placed to study objects having covered functions (Functions Anywhere), mutation (Mutation: Structures and Variables), and recursion (Recursion and Cycles from Mutation).

I cannot hope to do justice to the enormous space of object systems. Please read Object-Oriented Programming Languages: Application and Interpretation by Éric Tanter, which goes into more detail and covers topics ignored here. Let’s add this notion of objects to our language. Then we’ll flesh it out and grow it, and explore the many dimensions in the design space of objects. We’ll first show how to add objects to the core language, but because we’ll want to prototype many different ideas quickly, we’ll soon shift to a desguaring-based strategy. Which one you use depends on whether you think understanding them is critical to understanding the essence of your language. One way to measure this is how complex your desguaring strategy becomes, and whether by adding some key core language enhancements, you can greatly reduce the complexity of desugaring.

32.1 Interpreting Objects

The simplest notion of an object—pretty much the only thing everyone who talks about objects agrees about—is that an object is
  • a value, that

  • maps names to

  • stuff: either other values or “methods”.

From a minimalist perspective, methods seem to be just functions, and since we already have those in the language, we can put aside this distinction.We’re about to find out that “methods” are awfully close to functions but differ in important ways in how they’re called and/or what’s bound in them.

Starting from the language with variables, let’s define this very simple notion of objects by adding it to the core language. We clearly have to extend our notion of values:

data Value: | numV(n :: Number) | closV(f :: ExprC, e :: List<Binding>) | objV(ns :: List<String>, vs :: List<Value>) end

We’ll extend the expression grammar to support literal object construction expressions:Observe that this is already a design decision. In some languages, like JavaScript, a developer can write literal objects: a notion so popular that a subset of the syntax for it in JavaScript has become a Web standard, JSON. In other languages, like older versions of Java, objects can only be created by invoking a constructor on a class. We can simulate both by assuming that to model the latter kind of language, we must write object literals only in special positions following a stylized convention, as we do when desugaring below.

| objC(ns :: List<String>, vs :: List<ExprC>)

Evaluating such an object expression is easy: we just evaluate each of its expression positions. In the presence of state, however, we have to be careful to thread the store:

| objC(ns, vs) => obj-vs = eval-obj-vs(vs, nv, st) ret(objV(ns, obj-vs.exprs), obj-vs.final-store)


Write eval-obj-vs, which evaluates each expression in vs while threading the store. Assume it returns an object with two fields: exprs is the list of evaluated expressions, while final-store is the final store ensuing from these evaluations.

Unfortunately, we can’t actually use an object, because we have no way of obtaining its content. For that reason, we should add an operation to extract members:
<msgC-def> ::=

  | msgC(o :: ExprC, n :: String)

whose behavior is intuitive:

| msgC(o, n) => o-val = interp(o, nv, st) msg = lookup-msg(n, o-val.v) ret(msg, o-val.st)


Implement lookup-msg.

In principle, msgC can be used to obtain any kind of member but for simplicity, we need only assume that we have functions. To use them, we must apply them to values. This is cumbersome to write directly, so let’s assume desugaring has taken care of it for us: that is, the user can write (msg o m v)where o evaluates to an object, m names a method, and v evaluates to an argument value—and this desugars into using msgC to obtain the method and regular application to apply it.For illustration, we’ll assume methods take only one argument. This is easy to relax. Note that in a Lispy language we could have instead written (define (msg o m . a) (apply (o m) a)), which would have let msg take any number of arguments.

With this we have a full first language with objects. For instance, here is an object definition and invocation:

(let o (obj (add1 (lambda x (+ x 1)))

            (sub1 (lambda x (+ x -1))))

  (msg o sub1 2))

and this evaluates to (numV 1).

32.2 Objects by Desugaring

While defining objects in the core language is good to really understand their essence, it’s an unwieldy way to go about studying them. Instead, we’ll use Pyret to represent objects, sticking to the parts of the language we already know how to implement in our interpreter. That is, we’ll assume that we are looking at the output of desugaring. (For this reason, we’ll also stick to stylized code, potentially writing unnecessary expressions on the grounds that this is what a simple program generator would produce.)


The code that follows largely drops type annotations. Go back in and add these annotations wherever possible; where you can’t, explain what problems you encounter. See Types for Objects.

32.2.1 Objects as Named Collections

Let’s begin by reproducing the object language we had above. An object is just a value that dispatches on a given name. For simplicity, we’ll use anonymous functions to represent the object and conditionals to implement the dispatching.Observe that basic objects are a generalization of anonymous functions to have multiple “entry-points”. Conversely, an anonymous functions is an object with just one entry-point, so it doesn’t need a “method name” to disambiguate.
<obj-o-1> ::=

  o-1 =


      if m == "add1":

        lam(x): x + 1 end

      else if m == "sub1":

        lam(x): x - 1 end


        raise("message not found: " + m)



This is the same object we defined earlier, and we use its method in the same way:

check: o-1("add1")(5) is 6 end

Of course, writing method invocations with these nested function calls is unwieldy (and is about to become even more so), so we’d be best off equipping ourselves with a convenient syntax for invoking methods, which we can define here as a function:

fun msg(o, m, a): o(m)(a) end

This enables us to rewrite our test:

check: msg(o-1, "add1", 5) is 6 end

Do Now!

Something very important changed when we switched to the desguaring strategy. Do you see what it is?

Recall the syntax definition we had earlier: <msgC-def>. The “name” position of a message was very explicitly a syntactic string. That is, the user had to write the literal name of the method there. In our desugared version, the name position is just an expression that must evaluate to a string; this permits the user to write the following:

check: msg(o-1, "add" + "1", 5) is 6 end

which may very much not be intended (Member Access Design Space).

This is a general problem with desugaring: the target language may allow computations that have no counterpart in the source, and hence cannot be mapped back to it. Fortunately we don’t often need to perform this inverse mapping, though it does arise in some debugging and program comprehension tools. More subtly, however, we must ensure that the target language does not produce values that have no corresponding equivalent in the source.

Now that we have basic objects, let’s start adding the kinds of features we’ve come to expect from most object systems. But before we proceed, it’s unwieldy to define an object as an explicit conditional; we would rather write a more declarative mapping from names to methods, and leave the implementation of the lookup to the language. This, after all, is one of the key primitives provided by every definition of object-orientation. That is, we wish to write the previous object (<obj-o-1>) as

o-1-1 = mk-object( [list: mtd("add1", lam(x): x + 1 end), mtd("sub1", lam(x): x - 1 end) ] )

and to support this, we define the datatype

data Mtd: | mtd(name :: String, value) end

and the corresponding function

fun mk-object(n-vs): lam(m): fun lookup(locals): cases (List) locals: | empty => raise("message not found: " + m) | link(f, r) => if f.name == m: f.value else: lookup(r) end end end lookup(n-vs) end end

With this much simpler notation—which does not even require desugaring to implement—we are now better equipped to handle the study of object system features.

32.2.2 Constructors

A constructor is simply a function that is invoked at object construction time. We currently lack such a function. By turning an object from a literal into a function that takes constructor parameters, we achieve this effect:

o-constr-1 = lam(x): mk-object( [list: mtd("addX", lam(y): x + y end) ]) end check: msg(o-constr-1(5), "addX", 3) is 8 msg(o-constr-1(2), "addX", 3) is 5 end

In the first example, we pass 5 as the constructor’s argument, so adding 3 yields 8. The second is similar, and shows that the two invocations of the constructors don’t interfere with one another.

32.2.3 State

Many people believe that objects primarily exist to encapsulate state.Alan Kay, who won a Turing Award for inventing Smalltalk and modern object technology, disagrees. In The Early History of Smalltalk, he says, “[t]he small scale [motivation for OOP] was to find a more flexible version of assignment, and then to try to eliminate it altogether”. He adds, “It is unfortunate that much of what is called ‘object-oriented programming’ today is simply old style programming with fancier constructs. Many programs are loaded with ‘assignment-style’ operations now done by more expensive attached procedures.” We certainly haven’t lost that ability. If we desugar to a language with variables (we could equivalently use boxes, in return for a slight desugaring overhead), we can easily have multiple methods mutate common state, such as a constructor argument:

o-state-1 = lam(count): var mut-count = count mk-object( [list: mtd("inc", lam(n): mut-count := mut-count + n end), mtd("dec", lam(n): mut-count := mut-count - n end), mtd("get", lam(_): mut-count end) ] ) end

For instance, we can test a sequence of operations:

check: o = o-state-1(5) msg(o, "inc", 1) msg(o, "dec", 1) msg(o, "get", "dummy") is 5 end

and also notice that mutating one object doesn’t affect another:

check: o1 = o-state-1(5) o2 = o-state-1(5) msg(o1, "inc", 1) msg(o1, "inc", 1) msg(o1, "get", "dummy") is 7 msg(o2, "get", "dummy") is 5 end

32.2.4 Private Members

Another common object language feature is private members: ones that are visible only inside the object, not outside it.Except that, in Java, instances of other classes of the same type are privy to “private” members. Otherwise, you would simply never be able to implement an approximation to an Abstract Data Type. These may seem like an additional feature we need to implement, but we already have the necessary mechanism in the form of locally-scoped, lexically-bound variables, such as mut-count above: there is no way for surrounding code to access mut-count directly, because lexical scoping ensures that it remains hidden to the world.

32.2.5 Static Members

Another feature often valuable to users of objects is static members: those that are common to all instances of the “same” type of object.We use quotes because there are many notions of sameness for objects. And then some. This, however, is merely a lexically-scoped identifier (making it private) that lives outside the constructor (making it common to all uses of the constructor), such as counter below:

mk-bank-account = block: var counter = 0 lam(amount): var balance = amount counter := counter + 1 mk-object( [list: mtd("deposit", lam(m): balance := balance + m end), mtd("withdraw", lam(m): balance := balance - m end), mtd("balance", lam(_): balance end), mtd("how-many-accounts", lam(_): counter end) ]) end end

We’ve written the counter increment where the “constructor” for this object would go, though it could just as well be manipulated inside the methods. This obeys the following tests:

check: acc-1 = mk-bank-account(0) msg(acc-1, "how-many-accounts", "dummy") is 1 acc-2 = mk-bank-account(100) msg(acc-1, "how-many-accounts", "dummy") is 2 msg(acc-2, "how-many-accounts", "dummy") is 2 msg(acc-1, "deposit", 100) msg(acc-1, "withdraw", 50) msg(acc-2, "deposit", 10) msg(acc-1, "balance", "dummy") is 50 msg(acc-2, "balance", "dummy") is 110 msg(acc-1, "how-many-accounts", "dummy") is 2 msg(acc-2, "how-many-accounts", "dummy") is 2 end

Note that the different objects each affect the result seen by the other.

32.2.6 Objects with Self-Reference

Until now, our objects have simply been packages of named functions grouped together and hence given different, named entry-points. We’ve seen that many of the features considered important in object systems are actually simple patterns over functions and scope, and have indeed been used—without names assigned to them—for decades by programmers armed with anonymous functions (with lexical scope).

One characteristic that actually distinguishes object systems is that each object is automatically equipped with a reference to the same object, often called self or this.I prefer this slightly dry way of putting it to the anthropomorphic “knows about itself” terminology often adopted by object advocates. Indeed, note that we have gotten this far into object system properties without ever needing to resort to anthropomorphism. Can we implement this easily? Self-Reference Using Mutation

Yes, we can, because we have seen just this very pattern when we implemented recursion; we’ll just adapt it to refer not to the same box or function but to the same object.

o-self = block: var self = "dummy" self := mk-object( [list: mtd("first", lam(v): msg(self, "second", v + 1) end), mtd("second", lam(v): v + 1 end )]) self end

Observe that this is precisely the recursion pattern (Recursion and Cycles from Mutation), adapted slightly. We’ve tested it having "first" invoke its own "second" method. Sure enough, this produces the expected answer:

check: msg(o-self, "first", 5) is 7 end Self-Reference Without Mutation

If you know how to implement recursion without mutation [REF], you’ll notice that the same solution applies here, too. Observe:

o-self-no-state = mk-object( [list: mtd("first", lam(self, v): smsg(self, "second", v + 1) end), mtd("second", lam(self, v): v + 1 end )])

Each method now takes self as an argument. That means method invocation must be modified to pass along the object as part of the invocation:

fun smsg(o, m, a): o(m)(o, a) end

That is, when invoking a method on o, we must pass o as a parameter to the method. Obviously, this approach is dangerous because we can potentially pass a different object as the “self”. Exposing this to the developer is therefore probably a bad idea; if this implementation technique is used, it should only be done in desugaring. Nevertheless, Python exposes just this in its surface syntax.

Just to be sure, we can check this using essentially the same code as before:

check: smsg(o-self, "first", 5) is 7 end

32.2.7 Dynamic Dispatch

Finally, we should make sure our objects can handle a characteristic attribute of object systems, which is the ability to invoke a method without the caller having to know or decide which object will handle the invocation. Suppose we have a binary tree data structure, where a tree consists of either empty nodes or leaves that hold a value. In traditional functions, we are forced to implement the equivalent some form of conditional that exhaustively lists and selects between the different kinds of trees. If the definition of a tree grows to include new kinds of trees, each of these code fragments must be modified. Dynamic dispatch solves this problem by eliminating this conditional branch from the user’s program and instead handling it by the method selection code built into the language. The key feature that this provides is an extensible conditional. This is one dimension of the extensibility that objects provide.This property—which appears to make systems more black-box extensible because one part of the system can grow without the other part needing to be modified to accommodate those changes—is often hailed as a key benefit of object-orientation. While this is indeed an advantage objects have over functions, there is a dual advantage that functions have over objects, and indeed many object programmers end up contorting their code—using the Visitor pattern—to make it look more like a function-based organization. Read Synthesizing Object-Oriented and Functional Design to Promote Re-Use for a running example that will lay out the problem in its full glory. Try to solve it in your favorite language, and see the Racket solution.

Let’s now defined our two kinds of tree objects:

mt = lam(): mk-object( [list: mtd("add", lam(self, _): 0 end) ]) end node = lam(v, l, r): mk-object( [list: mtd("add", lam(self, _): v + smsg(l, "add", "dummy") + smsg(r, "add", "dummy") end) ] ) end

With these, we can make a concrete tree:

a-tree = node(10, node(5, mt(), mt()), node(15, node(6, mt(), mt()), mt()))

And finally, test it:

check: smsg(a-tree, "add", "dummy") is (10 + 5 + 15 + 6) end

Observe that both in the test and in the "add" method of node, there is a reference to "add" without checking whether the recipient is a mt or a node. Instead, the run-time system extracts the recipient’s "add" method and invokes it. This missing conditional in the user’s source program provided automatically by the system is the essence of dynamic dispatch.

32.3 Member Access Design Space

We already have two orthogonal dimensions when it comes to the treatment of member names. One dimension is whether the name is provided statically or computed, and the other is whether the set of names is fixed or variable:

Name is Static

Name is Computed

Fixed Set of Members

As in base Java.

As in Java with reflection to compute the name.

Variable Set of Members

Difficult to envision (what use would it be?).

Most scripting languages.

Only one case does not quite make sense: if we force the developer to specify the member name in the source file explicitly, then no new members would be accessible (and some accesses to previously-existing, but deleted, members would fail). All other points in this design space have, however, been explored by languages.

The lower-right quadrant corresponds closely with languages that use hash-tables to represent objects. Then the name is simply the index into the hash-table. Some languages carry this to an extreme and use the same representation even for numeric indices, thereby (for instance) conflating objects with dictionaries and even arrays. Even when the object only handles “member names”, this style of object creates significant difficulty for type-checking [REF] and is hence not automatically desirable.

Therefore, in the rest of this section, we will stick with “traditional” objects that have a fixed set of names and even static member name references (the top-left quadrant). Even then, we will find there is much, much more to study.

32.4 What (Goes In) Else?

So far, the “else clause” of method lookup (which is currently implemented by mk-object)—namely, what to do when the list of methods is empty—has signaled a “method not found” error. What else might happen instead? One possibility, adopted by many programming languages, is to “chain” control to one or more parent object(s). This is called inheritance.

Let’s return to our model of desugared objects above. To implement inheritance, the object must be given “something” to which it can delegate method invocations that it does not recognize. A great deal will depend on what that “something” is.

One answer could be that it is simply another object: where currently we have

| empty => raise("message not found: " + m)

we could instead have

| empty => parent-object(m)

Due to our representation of objects, this application effectively searches for the method in the parent object (and, presumably, recursively in its parents). If a method matching the name is found, it returns through this chain to the original call that sought the method. If none is found, the final parent object presumably signals the same “message not found” error.


Observe that the application parent-object(m) is like “half a msg”, just like an l-value was “half” a variable’s evaluation (Interpreting Variables). Is there any connection?

Let’s try this by extending our trees to implement another method, "size". We’ll write an “extension” (you may be tempted to say “sub-class”, but hold off for now!) for each node and mt to implement the size method. We intend these to extend the existing definitions of node and mt, so we’ll use the extension pattern described above.We’re not editing the existing definitions because that is supposed to be the whole point of object inheritance: to reuse code in a black-box fashion. This also means different parties, who do not know one another, can each extend the same base code. If they had to edit the base, first they have to find out about each other, and in addition, one might dislike the edits of the other. Inheritance is meant to sidestep these issues entirely.

32.4.1 Classes

Immediately we see a design choice. Is this the constructor pattern?

node-size-ext = fun(parent-object, v, l, r): ...

That is, we pass the parent object to node-size-ext along with the constructor parameters. Since the parent object will be an instance of node, and the two objects should presumably have the same values for the parameters, this means we would have had to specify those values twice (which violates the DRY principle). As an alternative, we can simply pass the constructor of the parent to node-size-ext and let it construct the parent object:

node-size-ext = lam(parent-maker, v, l, r): parent-object = parent-maker(v, l, r) mk-ext-object(parent-object, [list: mtd("size", lam(self, _): 1 + smsg(l, "size", "dummy") + smsg(r, "size", "dummy") end) ] ) end

Using this, we can make a more user-friendly interface to nodes with the size method:

fun node-size(v, l, r): node-size-ext(node, v, l, r) end

Do Now!

Did you notice that instead of mk-object we’ve used mk-ext-object above? Do you see that it takes one extra parameter? Try to define it for yourself.

The entire difference in mk-ext-object is that, if it cannot find a method in the current object, it chains to the parent:

fun mk-ext-object(parent, n-vs): lam(m): fun lookup(locals): cases (List) locals: | empty => parent(m) | link(f, r) => if f.name == m: f.value else: lookup(r) end end end lookup(n-vs) end end

With this, we can similarly create an extension of empty tree nodes:

mt-size-ext = lam(parent-maker): parent-object = parent-maker() mk-ext-object(parent-object, [list: mtd("size", lam(self, _): 0 end) ]) end fun mt-size(): mt-size-ext(mt) end

Finally, we can use these objects to construct a tree:

a-tree-size = node-size(10, node-size(5, mt-size(), mt-size()), node-size(15, node-size(6, mt-size(), mt-size()), mt-size()))

When testing, we should make sure both old and new behavior work:

check: smsg(a-tree-size, "add", "dummy") is (10 + 5 + 15 + 6) smsg(a-tree-size, "size", "dummy") is 4 end


Earlier, we commented that chaining method-lookup to parents presumably bottoms out at some sort of “empty object”, which might look like this:

fun empty-object(m): raise("message not found: " + m) end

However, we haven’t needed to define or use this despite the use of mk-ext-object. Why is that, and how would you fix that?

What we have done is capture the essence of a class. Each function parameterized over a parent is...well, it’s a bit tricky, really. Let’s call it a blob for now. A blob corresponds to what a Java programmer defines when they write a class:

class NodeSize extends Node { ... }

Do Now!

So why are we going out of the way to not call it a “class”?

When a developer invokes a Java class’s constructor, it in effect constructs objects all the way up the inheritance chain (in practice, a compiler might optimize this to require only one constructor invocation and one object allocation). These are private copies of the objects corresponding to the parent classes (private, that is, up to the presence of static members). There is, however, a question of how much of these objects is visible. Java chooses that—unlike in our implementation above—only one method of a given name (and signature) remains, no matter how many there might have been on the inheritance chain, whereas every field remains in the result, and can be accessed by casting. The latter makes some sense because each field presumably has invariants governing it, so keeping them separate (and hence all present) is wise. In contrast, it is easy to imagine an implementation that also makes all the methods available, not only the ones lowest (i.e., most refined) in the inheritance hierarchy. Many scripting languages take the latter approach.


In the implementation above, we have relied on the self-application semantics for recursive access to an object, rather than using state. The reason is because the behavior of inheritance would be subtly wrong if we used state naively, as we have shown above. Can you construct an example that illustrates this?

By examining values carefully, you will notice that the self reference is to the most refined object at all times. This demonstrates the other form of extensibility we get from traditional objects: extensible recursion. The extensible conditional can be viewed as free extension across “space”, namely, the different variants of data, whereas extensible recursion can be viewed as free extension across “time”, namely, the different extensions to the code. Nevertheless, as this paper points out, there’s no free lunch.

32.4.2 Prototypes

In our description above, we’ve supplied each class with a description of its parent class. Object construction then makes instances of each as it goes up the inheritance chain. There is another way to think of the parent: not as a class to be instantiated but, instead, directly as an object itself. Then all children with the same parent would observe the very same object, which means changes to it from one child object would be visible to another child. The shared parent object is known as a prototype.

The archetypal prototype-based language is Self. Though you may have read that languages like JavaScript are “based on” Self, there is value to studying the idea from its source, especially because Self presents these ideas in their purest form. Some language designers have argued that prototypes are more primitive than classes in that, with other basic mechanisms such as functions, one can recover classes from prototypes—but not the other way around. That is essentially what we have done above: each “class” function contains inside it an object description, so a class is an object-returning-function. Had we exposed these are two different operations and chosen to inherit directly from an object, we would have something akin to prototypes.


Modify the inheritance pattern above to implement a Self-like, prototype-based language, instead of a class-based language. Because classes provide each object with distinct copies of their parent objects, a prototype-language might provide a clone operation to simplify creation of the operation that simulates classes atop prototypes.

32.4.3 Multiple Inheritance

Now you might ask, why is there only one fall-through option? It’s easy to generalize this to there being many, which leads naturally to multiple inheritance. In effect, we have multiple objects to which we can chain the lookup, which of course raises the question of what order in which we should do so. It would be bad enough if the ascendants were arranged in a tree, because even a tree does not have a canonical order of traversal: take just breadth-first and depth-first traversal, for instance (each of which has compelling uses). Worse, suppose a blob A extends B and C; but now suppose B and C each extend D.This infamous situation is called diamond inheritance. If you choose to include multiple inheritance in your language you can lose yourself for days in design decisions on this. Because it is highly unlikely you will find a canonical answer, your pain will have only begun. Now we have to confront this question: will there be one or two D objects in the instance of A? Having only one saves space and might interact better with our expectations, but then, will we visit this object once or twice? Visiting it twice should not make any difference, so it seems unnecessary. But visiting it once means the behavior of one of B or C might change. And so on. As a result, virtually every multiple-inheritance language is accompanied by a subtle algorithm merely to define the lookup order—and each language’s designer argues why their algorithm is more intuitive.

Multiple inheritance is only attractive until you’ve thought it through.

32.4.4 Super-Duper!

Many languages have a notion of super-invocations, i.e., the ability to invoke a method or access a field higher up in the inheritance chain.Note that I say “the” and “chain”. When we switch to multiple inheritance, these concepts are replaced with something much more complex. This includes doing so at the point of object construction, where there is often a requirement that all constructors be invoked, to make sure the object is properly defined.

We have become so accustomed to thinking of these calls as going “up” the chain that we may have forgotten to ask whether this is the most natural direction. Keep in mind that constructors and methods are expected to enforce invariants. Whom should we trust more: the super-class or the sub-class? One argument would say that the sub-class is most refined, so it has the most global view of the object. Conversely, each super-class has a vested interest in protecting its invariants against violation by ignorant sub-classes.

These are two fundamentally opposed views of what inheritance means. Going up the chain means we view the extension as replacing the parent. Going down the chain means we view the extension as refining the parent. Because we normally associate sub-classing with refinement, why do our languages choose the “wrong” order of calling? Some languages have, therefore, explored invocation in the downward direction by default.gbeta is a modern programming language that supports inner, as well as many other interesting features. It is also interesting to consider combining both directions.

32.4.5 Mixins and Traits

Let’s return to our “blobs”.

When we write a class in Java, what are we really defining between the opening and closing braces? It is not the entire class: that depends on the parent that it extends, and so on recursively. Rather, what we define inside the braces is a class extension. It only becomes a full-blown class because we also identify the parent class in the same place.

Naturally, we should ask: Why? Why not separate the act of defining an extension from applying the extension to a base class? That is, suppose instead of

class C extends B { ... }

we instead write:

classext E { ... }

and separately

class C = E(B);

where B is some already-defined class.

This recovers what we had before, but the function-application-like syntax is meant to be suggestive: we can “apply” this extension to several different base classes. Thus:

class C1 = E(B1);

class C2 = E(B2);

and so on. What we have done by separating the definition of E from that of the class it extends is to liberate class extensions from the tyranny of the fixed base class. We have a name for these extensions: they’re called mixins.The term “mixin” originated in Common Lisp, where it was a particular pattern of using multiple inheritance. Lipstick on a pig.

Mixins make class definition more compositional. They provide many of the benefits of multiple-inheritance (reusing multiple fragments of functionality) but within the aegis of a single-inheritance language (i.e., no complicated rules about lookup order). Observe that when desugaring, it’s actually quite easy to add mixins to the language. A mixin is primarily a “function over classes”; because we have already determined how to desugar classes, and our target language for desugaring also has functions, and classes desugar to expressions that can be nested inside functions, it becomes almost trivial to implement a simple model of mixins.This is a case where the greater generality of the target language of desugaring can lead us to a better construct, if we reflect it back into the source language.

In a typed language, a good design for mixins can actually improve object-oriented programming practice. Suppose we’re defining a mixin-based version of Java. If a mixin is effectively a class-to-class function, what is the “type” of this “function”? Clearly, a mixin ought to use interfaces to describe what it expects and provides. Java already enables (but does not require) the latter, but it does not enable the former: a class (extension) extends another classwith all its members visible to the extension—not its interface. That means it obtains all of the parent’s behavior, not a specification thereof. In turn, if the parent changes, the class might break.

In a typed mixin language, we can instead write

mixin M extends I { ... }

where I is an interface. Then M can only be applied to a class that satisfies the interface I, and in turn the language can ensure that only members specified in I are visible in M. This follows one of the important principles of good software design.“Program to an interface, not an implementation.” —Design Patterns

A good design for mixins can go even further. A class can only be used once in an inheritance chain, by definition (if a class eventually referred back to itself, there would be a cycle in the inheritance chain, causing potential infinite loops). In contrast, when we compose functions, we have no qualms about using the same function twice (e.g.: (map ... (filter ... (map ...)))). Is there value to using a mixin twice?There certainly is! See sections 3 and 4 of Classes and Mixins.

Mixins solve an important problem that arises in the design of libraries. Suppose we have a dozen features that can be combined in different ways. How many classes should we provide? It is obviously impractical to generate the entire combinatorial explosion of classes. It would be better if the devleoper could pick and choose the features they care about. This is precisely the problem that mixins solve: they provide class extensions that the developers can combine, in an interface-preserving way, to create just the classes they need.Mixins are used extensively in the Racket GUI library. For instance, color:text-mixin consumes basic text editor interfaces and implements the colored text editor interface. The latter is iself a basic text editor interface, so additional basic text mixins can be applied to the result.


How does your favorite object-oriented library solve this problem?

Mixins do have one limitation: they enforce a linearity of composition. This strictness is sometimes misplaced, because it puts a burden on programmers that may not be necessary. A generalization of mixins called traits says that instead of extending a single mixin, we can extend a set of them. Of course, the moment we extend more than one, we must again contend with potential name-clashes. Thus traits must be equipped with mechanisms for resolving name clashes, often in the form of some name-combination algebra. Traits thus offer a nice complement to mixins, enabling programmers to choose the mechanism that best fits their needs. A handful of languages, such as Racket, therefore provide both traits and mixins.

32.5 Object Classification and Object Equality

Previously [A Family of Equality Predicates], we have seen three different kinds of equality operations. For the purpose of this discussion, we will ignore the distinction between equal-now and equal-always, focusing on the fact that both are primarily structural (equal-now being purely so). Extended to objects, this would check each member recursively, perhaps ignoring methods in languages that cannot compare them for equality, or comparing them using reference equality.

This leaves us with the very fine-grained and unforgiving identical, and the very coarse-grained and perhaps overly forgiving equal-now. Why is structural equality overly forgiving? Because two completely unrelated objects that just happened to have the same member names and types could end up being regarded equal: as a famous example in the objects community has it, draw is a meaningful method of both user interfaces and cowhands.

Therefore, some systems provide an equality predicate “in the middle”: it is still fundamentally structural, but it discriminates between objects that were not “made the same way”. The typical notion of construction is associated with a class: all objects made from a certain class are considered to be candidates for (structural) equality, but objects made from different classes (for some notion of “different”) are immediately ruled unequal independent of their structure (which may in fact be identical).

In the special case where classes are named, first-order entities, this is called nominal equality: an equality based on names. However, it does not have to depend on names, nor even on first-order classes. Some languages have dynamic tag creators—known to the language—called brands.In keeping with the cowhand theme. Each branding operation places a tag on an object. The built-in equality primitives then check for brands being identical; when this condition is met, they revert to structural equality (which may involve additional brand-checking during recursion).

32.6 Types for Objects

Having studied various programming mechanisms, we now turn our focus to types for them. First (Subtyping) we will relax the notion of invariance for substitutability (The Principle of Substitutability). Then, we will discuss how new notions of equality (Object Classification and Object Equality) can impact subtyping to create a new class of types (Nominal Types).

32.6.1 Subtyping

Consider two object types. The first we will call Add1Sub1:

type Add1Sub1 = { add1 :: (Number -> Number), sub1 :: (Number -> Number) }

This is a type for objects that have two members, add1 and sub1, of the given types. The question we need to answer is, precisely what objects can be given this type?

To understand this, let us consider another, related type, which we will call Arith:

type Arith = { add1 :: (Number -> Number), sub1 :: (Number -> Number), plus :: (Number, Number -> Number), mult :: (Number, Number -> Number) }

Notice that two members have the same name and the same type, but there are two more members (plus and mult).

Consider a function designed to work with Arith values:

fun f(a :: Arith) -> Number: a.plus(2, 3) end

Is it okay to pass a value of type Add1Sub1 to f? Of course not: the function invokes the member plus, which the type annotation on a says it can expect to find; but if the value passed in does not have this member, this would result in a run-time member not found error, which is precisely what the type system was trying to avoid. Therefore, we cannot substitute a value of type Add1Sub1 in a context expecting a Arith.

But how about in the other direction? This is entirely reasonable: the context is expecting a Add1Suband hence not using any more than what that type promises. Because Arith supplies everything expected by Add1Sub1, it is okay to provide a Arith value for a Add1Sub1.

This is our first example of subtyping. We say that Arith is a subtype of Add1Sub1 because we can supply an Arith value in any context that expected a Add1Sub1 value. Specifically, because this involves dropping some members—i.e., making the object “less wide”—this is called width subtyping.

The essence of subtyping is a relation, conventionally written as <:, between pairs of types. We say S <: T if a value of type S can be given where a value of type T is expected, and call S the subtype and T the supertype. Therefore, in the above example, Arith <: Add1Sub1 and Arith is a subtype of Add1Sub1.Later [Nominal Types], we will talk about how subtypes correspond to subclasses. But for now observe that we’re talking only about objects, without any reference to the existence of classes. It is useful (and usually accurate) to take a subset interpretation: if the values of S are a subset of T, then an expression expecting T values will not be unpleasantly surprised to receive only S values.


Why is subtyping a relation and not a function?

In other words:

{ add1 : (Number -> Number), { add1 : (Number -> Number), sub1 : (Number -> Number), <: sub1 : (Number -> Number) } plus : (Number, Number -> Number), mult : (Number, Number -> Number) }

This may momentarily look confusing: we’ve said that subtyping follows set inclusion, so we would expect the smaller set on the left and the larger set on the right. Yet, it looks like we have a “larger type” (certainly in terms of character count) on the left and a “smaller type” on the right.

To understand why this is sound, it helps to develop the intuition that the “larger” the type, the fewer values it can have. Every object that has the four members on the left clearly also has the two members on the right. However, there are many objects that have the two members on the right that fail to have all four on the left. If we think of a type as a constraint on acceptable value shapes, the “bigger” type imposes more constraints and hence admits fewer values. Thus, though the types may appear to be of the wrong sizes, everything is well because the sets of values they subscribe are of the expected sizes.

As you might expect, there is another important form of subtyping, which is within a given member. This simply says that any particular member can be subsumed to a supertype in its corresponding position. For obvious reasons, this form is called depth subtyping.


Construct two examples of depth subtyping. In one, give the field itself an object type, and use width subtyping to subtype that field. In the other, give the field a function type.

The combination of width and depth subtyping cover the most interesting cases of object subtyping. A type system that implemented only these two would, however, needlessly annoy programmers. Other convenient rules include the ability to permute names, reflexivity (every type is a subtype of itself, which gives us invariance for free, and lets us interpret the subtype relationship as subset), and transitivity.

Subtyping has a pervasive effect on the type system. We have to reexamine every kind of type and understand its interaction with subtyping. For base types, this is usually quite obvious: disjoint types like Number, String, etc., are all unrelated to each other. (In languages where one base type is used to represent another—for instance, in some scripting languages numbers are merely strings written with a special syntax, and in other languages, Booleans are merely numbers—there might be subtyping relationships even between base types, but these are not common.) However, we do have to consider how subtyping interacts with every single compound type constructor.

In fact, even our very diction about types has to change. Suppose we have an expression of type T. Normally, we would say that it produces values of type T. Now, we should be careful to say that it produces values of up to or at most T, because it may only produce values of a subtype of T. Thus every reference to a type should implicitly be cloaked in a reference to the potential for subtyping. To avoid pestering you I will refrain from doing this, but be wary that it is possible to make reasoning errors by not keeping this implicit interpretation in mind. Subtyping Functions

Our examples above have been carefully chosen to mask an important detail: the subtyping of functions. To understand this, we will build up an example.

Consider a hypothetical language with a new type called Boolean01, where true is just an alias for 1 and false is an alias for 0. Thus, in this language, Boolean01 <: Number; all Boolean01 values are of type Number, but not all Number values are Boolean01 (indeed, most are not). In this language, we can write some functions:

fun b2n(b :: Boolean01) -> Number: if b == 0: # alias for false 1 else if b == 1: # alias for true 0 else: raise('not valid number as Boolean01') end end fun n2b(n :: Number) -> Boolean01: if n == 0: false # alias for 0 else if n == 1: true # alias for 1 else: raise('no valid Boolean01 for number') end end fun n2n(n :: Number) -> Number: n + 1 end fun b2b(b :: Boolean01) -> Boolean01: if b == 0: # alias for false true # alias for 1 else if b == 1: # alias for true false # alias 0 else: raise('not valid number as Boolean01') end end

Let us also define four types:

type N2N = (Number -> Number) type B2B = (Boolean01 -> Boolean01) type N2B = (Number -> Boolean01) type B2N = (Boolean01 -> Number)

We can now ask the following question: which of these types are subtypes of the other? In more concrete terms, which of these functions can be safely substituted for which others?

We might expect a rule as follows. Because Boolean01 <: Number (in our imaginary system), a (Boolean01 -> Boolean01) function is a subtype of a (Number -> Number) function. This is a natural conclusion to arrive at...but wrong, as we will soon see.

To make this concrete, assume we have a function p that consumes and uses one of these functions. The function could be a member in an object, though for the purposes of understanding the basic problem, we don’t need that: we can focus just on the function types. Thus, we have something like

fun p(op :: (A -> B)) -> B: op(a-value) end

where A and B are going to be all the combinations of Number and Boolean01, and assume that a-value has whatever the A type is. For each type for op (column headers), we will ask which of the above functions (row headers) we can safely pass to p.

Do Now!

Stop and try to fill out this table first.











yes (identical)


no (range)


yes (domain)


no (range)



yes (range)


yes (identical)


yes (domain and range)


yes (domain)



no (domain)


no (domain and range)


yes (identical)


no (range)



no (domain)


no (domain)


yes (range)


yes (identical)

In each cell, “yes” means the function on the left can be passed in when the type at the top is expected, while “no” means it cannot. Parentheses give the reason: “identical” means they are the same type (so of course they can be passed in); in the “yes” case it says where subtyping needed to apply, while in the “no” case where the type error is.

Let us consider trying to pass n2n to a N2B annotation (for op). Because the return type of p is Boolean01, whatever uses p(n2n) assumes that it gets only Boolean01 values back. However, the function n2n is free to return any numeric value it wants: in particular, given 1 it returns 2, which does not correspond to either Boolean01. Therefore, allowing this parameter can result in an unsound program execution. To prevent that, we must flag this as a type error.

More generally, if the type of the emph formal parameter promises Boolean01, the actual function passed had better return only Boolean01; but if the type of the formal is Number, the actual can safely return Boolean01 without causing trouble. Thus, in general, for (A -> B) <: (C -> D), we must have that B <: D. In other words, the subtyping of the range parallels the subtyping of the function itself, so we say the range position is covariant (“co-” meaning “together”).

Now we get to the more interesting case: the domain. Consider why we can pass n2n where a B2N is expected. Inside the body of op, a-value can only be a Boolean01, because that is all the type permits. Because every Boolean01 is a Number, the function n2n has no trouble accepting it.

In contrast, consider passing b2n where an N2N is expected. Inside op, a-value can evaluate to any number, because op is expected (by the type annotation on p) to be able to accept it. However, b2n can accept only two numbers; everything else results in an error. Hence, if the type-checker were to allow this, we could get a run-time error even though the program passed the type-checker.

From this, the moral we derive is that for the domain position, the formal must be a subtype of the actual. The formal parameter bounds what values op can expect; so long as the actual can take a set of values at least as large, there will be no problem. Thus, for (A -> B) <: (C -> D), we must have that C <: A. The subtyping of the domain goes in the direction opposite to that of the subtyping of the function itself, so we say the range position is contravariant (“contra-” meaning “opposite”).

Putting together these two rules, (A -> B) <: (C -> D) when C <: A and B <: D. Subtyping and Information Hiding

Consider an object o that implements the Add1Sub1 type. By the nature of width subtyping, there is absolutely nothing preventing the object from also having members named plus and mult of the right type. This raises a question: if we write

o :: Add1Sub1 = ...

where ... is an object with plus and mult, and then we attempt to pass o to f, what should happen?

In a strictly dynamic interpretation—e.g., if this program were written without any annotations at all—it would work perfectly fine. Doing so statically, however, means that we have violated our intuition about what these annotations mean. In general, it is going to be undecidable whether an object of type Add1Sub1 actually has the additional Arith members in it, so it is safest to reject programs that attempt to use Add1Sub1-annotated values as Arith ones. The natural type system will prevent us from passing o to f.

In short, the static type system becomes a mechanism for information hiding. By leaving out some members in type descriptions, we effectively hide the fact that they exist. For instance, one could create an object

crypto = { private-key: ... , public-key: ..., decrypt: fun(msg): ... end, encrypt: fun(plain-text): ... end }

and ascribe it the type

type PK = { public-key: Number, encrypt: (String -> String) }

as follows:

for-dist :: PK = crypto

Then all references to for-dist can only use the public interface and have no way to access the private-key or decrypt members, but those that have access to the crypto object can use those members. Provided access to crypto is provisioned carefully, the language will ensure the privacy of these two sensitive members.

However, this becomes more tricky in a system that is not purely statically typed, including ones where a typed language can interoperate with an untyped one. In an untyped language there are no annotations, so there is nothing preventing the plus member of o or the decrypt member of for-dist from being accessed: after all, those members really are present in the underlying object. Thus, it is common when “exporting” a typed object to any kind of untrusted or unannotated context to create a proxy object; it would be as if the developer wrote the following by hand:

fun proxy-for-crypto(c): { public-key: c.public-key, encrypt: c.encrypt } end proxy-dist = proxy-for-crypto(for-dist)

It is proxy-dist that is then provided to dangerous contexts. Since the resulting object really contains only two fields, and the underlying object is only visible in lexical scope (c), so long as the language does not provide a means to inspect or traverse the scope (an assumption not guaranteed by all languages!), the untyped or dangerous context cannot get access to the private content. Implementing Subtyping

Of course, these rules assume that we have modified the type-checker to respect subtyping. The essence of subtyping is a rule that says, if an expression e is of type S, and S <: T, then e also has type T. While this sounds intuitive, it is also immediately problematic for two reasons:
  • Until now all of our type rules have been syntax-driven, which is what enabled us to write a recursive-descent type-checker. Now, however, we have a rule that applies to all expressions, so we can no longer be sure when to apply it.

  • There could be many levels of subtyping. As a result, it is no longer obvious when to “stop” subtyping. In particular, whereas before type-checking was able to calculate the type of an expression, now we have many possible types for each expression; if we return the “wrong” one, we might get a type error (due to that not being the type expected by the context) even though there exists some other type that was the one expected by the context.

What these two issues point to is that the description of subtyping we are giving here is fundamentally declarative: we are saying what must be true, but not showing how to turn it into an algorithm. For each actual type language, there is a less or more interesting problem in turning this into algorithmic subtyping: an actual algorithm that realizes a type-checker (ideally one that types exactly those programs that would have typed under the declarative regime, i.e., one that is both sound and complete).

32.6.2 Types for Self-Reference

Remember that one of the essential features of many object systems is having a reference, inside a method, to the object on which it was invoked: i.e., a self-reference [Objects with Self-Reference]. What is the type of this self identifier?

Consider the type Add1Sub1 we described earlier. To be entirely honest, the implementation of add1 and sub1to be methodsmust take an extra parameter that will be a self-reference. What is the nature of this self-referential parameter? It is clearly an object; it clearly has two methods, add1 and sub1 (at least up to subtyping); and each of those methods takes two parameters, one a number and...

You see where this is going.

Object types are therefore typically recursive types: the type world’s equivalent of rec [REF]. Typically, they are written μ (“mu”) instead of rec; thus:

type Add1Sub1 = μ T . { add1 :: (T, Number -> Number), sub1 :: (T, Number -> Number) }

Read the right-hand side as “construct a recursive type T such that it (a) is an object, (b) has two members add1 and sub1, and (c) each member has two parameters, the first of which is the type being defined” (and so on).

Unfortunately, recursive types are not as simple as they look. Note that the above type does not have a “base case”; thus, it is a finite representation of an infinite type (which is exactly what we want, because we can write an infinite number of self applications). Therefore, when it comes to checking for the equality of two recursive types, we encounter complications, which are beyond the scope of this study.See Pierce’s Types and Programming Languages for details.

32.6.3 Nominal Types

Earlier [Object Classification and Object Equality] we read about nominal equality, where classes are made to aid in equality comparisons. In some typed languages—Java being a poster-child—classes carry an even heavier load: they are also used as the basis for the type system, rather than structural types.

The basic idea is that each class (or other nominal entity) defines an entirely new type, even if the type-structure of its members is exactly the same as that of some other type. Then, type equality mirrors nominal equality, but trivially: if two values have the same type they must have the same structure, and if they have different types then their structure doesn’t matter (even if it’s identical). Thus, type equality reduces to a constant-time check of whether the classes are the same.

Nominal types have one more advantage. They effectively make it straightforward to write recursive types without wrestling with μ. Consider the following Java class definition:

class Add1Sub1 {

  public int add1(int n) { ... }

  public int sub1(int n) { ... }


Implicit in these two method definitions are this parameters. But what is the type of this? It’s just Add1Sub1: the keyword class not only introduces a new name but automatically makes it a recursive binding. Thus, programmers can comfortably refer to and use nominal types without having to dwell on their true meaning (as recursive types) or their equality (because it’s by name rather than structure). Thus, nominal types, for all their inflexibility, do offer an elegant solution to a particular set of language design constraints.

It is worth noting that in Java, inheritance (unfortunately) corresponds to subtyping. As we go up the inheritance chain a class has fewer and fewer members (width subtyping), until we reach Object, the supertype of all classes, which has the fewest. Thus for all class types C in Java, C <: Object.Somewhat confusingly, the terms narrowing and widening are sometimes used, but with what some might consider the opposite meaning. To widen is to go from subtype to supertype, because it goes from a “narrower” (smaller) to a “wider” (bigger) set. These terms evolved independently, but unfortunately not consistently. The interpretation of subtyping as subsets holds: every object that has a type lower in an inheritance hierarchy also has a type higher in the hierarchy, but not vice versa. When it comes to depth subtyping, however, Java prefers types to be invariant down the object hierarchy because this is a safe option for conventional mutation.