Hello. This post is a continuation of my posts discussing the topic of associated type constructors (ATC) and higher-kinded types (HKT):

The first post focused on introducing the basic idea of ATC, as well as introducing some background material. This post talks about some apparent limitations of associated type constructors, and shows how we can overcome them by making use of a design pattern that I call “family traits”. Along the way, we introduce the term higher-kinded type for the first time, and show (informally) that family traits are equally general.

The limits of associated type constructors

OK, so in the last post we saw how we can use ATC to define a Collection trait, and how to implement that trait for our sample collection List<T> . In particular, ATC let us express the return type of the iterator() method as Self::Iter<'iter> , so that we can incorporate the lifetime 'iter of each particular iterator.

What I’d like to do now is to go one step further – what if I wanted to write a function that converts a collection of integers into a collection of floats. Something like this:

fn floatify < I , F > ( ints : & I ) -> F where I : Collection < i32 > , F : Collection < f32 > { let mut floats = F :: empty (); for & f in c .iterate () { floats .add ( f as f32 ); } floats }

This code would work just fine, but it has some interesting properties that we may not have expected. In particular, floatify() can convert any collection of integers into any collection of floats, but those collections can be of totally different types. For example, I could convert from a List<i32> to a Vec<f32> like so:

fn foo ( x : & List < i32 > ) -> f32 { let y : Vec < f32 > = floatify ( x ); // ^^^^^^^^ notice the type annotation y .iterate () .sum () }

This is more flexible, which is good, but also has some downsides. For example, that same flexibility can make type inference harder. To see what I mean, imagine that I wanted to remove the Vec<f32> type annotation from the variable y , like so:

fn foo ( x : & List < i32 > ) -> f32 { let y = floatify ( x ); // ^ error: type not constrained! y .iterate () .sum () }

This would not compile, because we don’t have enough information to figure out the type of y ! In particular, we know that y is a “collection of f32 values”, but we don’t know what kind of collection. It is a Vec<f32> or List<f32> ? Obviously it makes a difference to the semantics of our code, since vectors add items onto the end, and lists add things onto the beginning, so the order of iterator is going to be different (and, since these are floats and hence + is not actually commutative, that implies the sum may well be different). So the compiler doesn’t want to just guess.

So maybe we’d like to say that floatify takes and returns a collection of the same type. It turns out we can’t do that with just the Collection trait we’ve seen so far. Essentially, the signature that we would want is maybe something like this (ignoring the where clauses for now):

fn floatify_hkt < I > ( ints : & I < i32 > ) -> I < f32 > // ^^^^^^ wait up, what is `I` here?

But woah, what is this I thing here? It’s not a type parameter in the normal sense, since it doesn’t represent a type like Vec<i32> or List<i32> . Instead it represents a kind of “partial type”, like Vec or List , where the the element type is not yet specified. Or, as type theorists like to call it, a “higher-kinded type” (HKT). I’ll get into why it’s called that, and more about how such a thing might work, in the next post. For this post, I want to focus on an alternative solution, one that doesn’t require HKT at all.

Introducing type families

So let’s assume that type parameters still just represent plain old types – in that case, is it possible to write a version of floatify() that returns a collection of the same “sort” as its input?

It turns out you can do it, but you need an extra trait. We already saw the Collection trait before; we’d want to add a second trait, let’s call it CollectionFamily , that lets us go from a “collection family” (e.g., Vec ) to a specific collection (e.g., Vec<T> ):

trait CollectionFamily { type Member < T > : Collection < T > ; }

A “collection family” corresponds to a ‘family’ of collections, like Vec or List . We’re also going to need then some dummy types to use for implementing this trait:

struct VecFamily ; impl CollectionFamily for VecFamily { type Member < T > = Vec < T > ; } struct ListFamily ; impl CollectionFamily for ListFamily { type Member < T > = List < T > ; }

Note: While writing this post I realized that Haskell also has a feature called “associated type families”. Those are certainly related to the things I am talking about here, but I am not trying to model that Haskell feature, and my use of the term “family” is independent.

Families and inference

OK, so now we have the idea of a “collection family”. You might think then that we can now rewrite floatify like so:

fn floatify_family < F > ( ints : & F :: Collection < i32 > ) -> F :: Collection < f32 > where F : CollectionFamily { let mut floats = F :: Coll :: empty (); for & f in c .iterate () { floats .add ( f as f32 ); } floats }

Whereas before the type parameters represented specific collection types, now we take a type parameter F that represents an entire family of collection types. Then we can can use F::Collection<i32> to name “the collection in the family F whose item type is i32 ”.

This type signature for floatify_family() works, but let’s see what happens now for our caller:

fn foo ( x : & List < i32 > ) -> f32 { let y = floatify_family :: < ListFamily > ( x ); // ^^^^^^^^^^ wait, what? y .iterate () .sum () }

It turns out that there is good and bad news. The good news is that, once we know the family, we can indeed infer the type of y . The bad news is that, at least with the setup we have so far, we can’t actually infer the type of the family! That is, the floatify_family::<ListFamily> annotation turns out to be required! To see why, let’s look again at the signature of floatify_family()

fn floatify_family < F > ( ints : & F :: Collection < i32 > ) -> F :: Collection < f32 > where F : CollectionFamily

As before, to infer the type of F , we going to replace F with an inference variable ?F , and then do some unification. So we can see that the type of the ints argument will be something like this (here I am using the fully qualified notation to make everything explicit):

<?F as CollectionFamily>::Collection<i32>

We have to unify this with List<i32> . But this presents a bit of a problem! Knowing the value of an associated type ( ?F::Collection<i32> ) doesn’t really let us figure out what impl that associated type came from (i.e., what ?F is). After all, there could be other impls that specify the same Coll .

Linking collections and families

To make inference work, then, we really need a “backlink” from Collection to CollectionFamily . This lets us go from a specific collection type to its family:

trait Collection < T > { // Backlink to `Family`. type Family : CollectionFamily ; // as before: fn empty () -> Self ; fn add ( & mut self , value : Item ); fn iterate ( & self ) -> Self :: Iter ; type Iter : Iterator < Item = Item > ; } trait CollectionFamily { type Member < T > : Collection < T , Family = Self > ; }

Now we could rewrite floatify_family like so:

fn floatify_family < C > ( ints : & C ) -> C :: Family :: Member < f32 > where C : Collection < i32 > // ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ another collection, in same family { ... }

This change will mean that we can write the call without any type annotations:

fn foo ( x : & List < i32 > ) -> f32 { let y = floatify_family ( x ); // ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ look ma, no annotations y .iterate () .sum () }

What will happen is that, at the call site, the inferencer will create two type variables, ?C and ?F . From the argument types, we can deduce that ?C = List<i32> . Next, solving the constraint ?C: Collection<i32, Family=?F> will allow us to deduce that ?F = ListFamily . And hence we are all set.

Side-note: extending higher-ranked trait bounds

There’s one part of RFC 1598 that I haven’t covered so far. I just want to mention it in passing; it’ll become a bit more prominent in later articles in this series. The RFC includes a generalization of Rust’s higher-ranked trait bounds to support generalization over types. This actually occurs quite implicitly and naturally. To see what I mean, consider the CollectionFamily trait:

trait CollectionFamily { type Member < T > : Collection < T > ; // ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ what does this bound apply to? }

In particular, consider the bound Collection<T> – this bound applies to the type Self::Member<T> , but what is T here? The answer is that T is a stand-in for “any type” (or, almost).

Currently, we have a notation for writing trait bounds that apply to any lifetime. For example, for<'a> T: Foo<'a> means “for any lifetime 'a , T implements Foo<'a> ”; you could also write T: for<'a> Foo<'a> , which is equivalent. This 'a lifetime can also appear as part of the type, so one might write for<'a> &'a T: Foo<'a> (in this case, you can’t move the for<'a> around, since it brings the 'a into scope).

(There are actually lots of interesting implementation questions raised by HRTB, some of which we haven’t fully worked through. I’ve got another series of blog posts on those, but I’m going to leave that aside for now.)

Anyway, this for<> notation is just what we need to handle our Member<T> type, except that we need it to apply to types. Basically we want a bound like this:

for < T > Self :: Member < T > : Collection < T >

Meaning in English, “for any type T , Self::Member<T> implements the trait Collection<T> ”. Or, more naturally, “ Member<T> is always a collection, no matter what T is”.

(This is a simplification. Really, T must meet some requirements – for example, it likely must be Sized . This is precisely the stuff I want to get into in a later post, since our current implementation doesn’t handle these kinds of requirements as gracefully as it should/could.)

Families vs HKT

It should be clear that the “collection families” I introduced in the last section basically correspond to higher-kinded types, but made more explicit. This shows that associated type constructors are indeed a quite general tool. I am pretty sure that one can convert any program using HKT to use associated type constructors, but of course one must follow this family pattern.

One could view this as a problem: one could also view it a plus. After all, associated type constructors are a tiny delta on the language we have today, and yet we gain the full power of HKT. Basically, teaching ATC isn’t much harder than teaching Rust today, and then we can just add the “design pattern” of families on top – this may well be less intimidating than teaching “HKT” itself. Maybe.

One nice part about avoiding “true HKT” is that we get to sidestep some of the thorny questions that it raises. In particular, the challenges that full HKT poses for inference. We’ll come back to those: it turns out that they are highly related to the problems we had in families that prompted us to add a Family member to Collection .

One big question, I think, is how often we would want to define these sorts of “family” traits, and how it would really feel to use them “at scale”. I can think of several places that families might make sense. Let me just give a few examples of possible families.

Parameterizing over smart pointers and thread safety

One thing I think people want to do from time to time is to parameterize over Rc vs Arc . You might imagine having a family like this for choosing between them:

trait RefCountedFamily { type Ptr < T > : RefCounted < T , Family = Self > ; fn new < T > ( value : T ) -> Self :: Ptr < T > ; } trait RefCounted < T > : Deref < Target = T > + Clone { type Family : RefCountedFamily ; }

An example that could benefit from this is persistent collections like mw’s hamt-rs library, which currently encodes Arc .

More generally, you might want to be able to map between patterns types like Rc<Cell<usize>> or Rc<RefCell<T>> vs Arc<AtomicUsize> or Arc<Rwlock<T>> ; these are mostly equivalent, except that the latter is thread-safe but more expensive.

Parameterizing over mutability

Another common thing is the need to be parameterized over &'a T vs &'a mut T . Interestingly, I don’t think that associated type constructors (or HKT) really gives us that! The problem is that borrow expressions operate on paths, and we have no way to reify that distinction right now. Basically you can’t make methods that model the & operator; interestingly, this problem is also a limitation for modeling garbage collection in Rust. I’ll try to get into this in one of the later posts in the series, but it’s an interesting shortcoming I hadn’t realized till trying to write out this post.

Conclusions

OK, in this post we covered a design pattern I call “family traits”, that uses ATC to model HKT:

Our original Collection trait let you iterate over existing collections, but it didn’t let you convert between types of collections; in other words, if I have a type like C: Collection<i32> , I couldn’t get a type D where D: Collection<u32> that is guaranteed to be the same “sort” of collection.

trait let you iterate over existing collections, but it didn’t let you convert between types of collections; “Higher-kinded types” are basically a way to make this notion more formal, and refer to an “unapplied generic” like Vec or List .

or . We can model this relationship with ATC by defining a type like VecFamily or ListFamily that is also unapplied, and then definiting a trait CollectionFamily . For type inference reasons, we also need to be able to go from a specific Collection type like C to its family ( C::Family ).

or that is also unapplied, and then definiting a trait .

The next post will dig deeper into what higher-kinded types might look like in Rust, and in particular we want to see if there’s a way to make them “play nice” with the Collection<T> trait we’ve been looking at.

Please leave comments on this internals thread.