
\chapter{Polymorphism and its limitations}%
\label{c:polymorphism}
%HEVEA\cutname{polymorphism.html}

\bigskip

\noindent This chapter covers more advanced questions related to the
limitations of polymorphic functions and types. There are some situations
in OCaml where the type inferred by the type checker may be less generic
than expected. Such non-genericity can stem either from interactions
between side-effects and typing or the difficulties of implicit polymorphic
recursion and higher-rank polymorphism.

This chapter details each of these situations and, if it is possible,
how to recover genericity.

\section{s:weak-polymorphism}{Weak polymorphism and mutation}
\subsection{ss:weak-types}{Weakly polymorphic types}
Maybe the most frequent examples of non-genericity derive from the
interactions between polymorphic types and mutation. A simple example
appears when typing the following expression
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
let store = ref None ;;
\end{caml_example}
Since the type of "None" is "'a option" and the function "ref" has type
"'b -> 'b ref", a natural deduction for the type of "store" would be
"'a option ref". However, the inferred type, "'_weak1 option ref", is
different. Type variables whose names start with a "_weak" prefix like
"'_weak1" are weakly polymorphic type variables, sometimes shortened to
``weak type variables''.
A weak type variable is a placeholder for a single type that is currently
unknown. Once the specific type "t" behind the placeholder type "'_weak1"
is known, all occurrences of "'_weak1" will be replaced by "t". For instance,
we can define another option reference and store an "int" inside:
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
let another_store = ref None ;;
another_store := Some 0;
another_store ;;
\end{caml_example}
After storing an "int" inside "another_store", the type of "another_store" has
been updated from "'_weak2 option ref" to "int option ref".
This distinction between weakly and generic polymorphic type variable protects
OCaml programs from unsoundness and runtime errors. To understand from where
unsoundness might come, consider this simple function which swaps a value "x"
with the value stored inside a "store" reference, if there is such value:
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
let swap store x = match !store with
  | None -> store := Some x; x
  | Some y -> store := Some x; y;;
\end{caml_example}
We can apply this function to our store
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
let one = swap store 1
let one_again = swap store 2
let two = swap store 3;;
\end{caml_example}
After these three swaps the stored value is "3". Everything is fine up to
now. We can then try to swap "3" with a more interesting value, for
instance a function:
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}[error]
let error = swap store (fun x -> x);;
\end{caml_example}
At this point, the type checker rightfully complains that it is not
possible to swap an integer and a function, and that an "int" should always
be traded for another "int". Furthermore, the type checker prevents us from
manually changing the type of the value stored by "store":
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}[error]
store := Some (fun x -> x);;
\end{caml_example}
Indeed, looking at the type of store, we see that the weak type "'_weak1" has
been replaced by the type "int"
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
store;;
\end{caml_example}
Therefore, after placing an "int" in "store", we cannot use it to store any
value other than an "int". More generally, weak types protect the program from
undue mutation of values with a polymorphic type.

%todo: fix indentation in manual.pdf
Moreover, weak types cannot appear in the signature of toplevel modules:
types must be known at compilation time. Otherwise, different compilation
units could replace the weak type with different and incompatible types.
For this reason, compiling the following small piece of code
\begin{verbatim}
let option_ref = ref None
\end{verbatim}
yields a compilation error
\begin{verbatim}
Error: The type of this expression, '_weak1 option ref,
       contains type variables that cannot be generalized
\end{verbatim}
To solve this error, it is enough to add an explicit type annotation to
specify the type at declaration time:
\begin{verbatim}
let option_ref: int option ref = ref None
\end{verbatim}
This is in any case a good practice for such global mutable variables.
Otherwise, they will pick out the type of first use. If there is a mistake
at this point, it can result in confusing type errors when later, correct
uses are flagged as errors.

\subsection{ss:valuerestriction}{The value restriction}

Identifying the exact context in which polymorphic types should be
replaced by weak types in a modular way is a difficult question. Indeed
the type system must handle the possibility that functions may hide persistent
mutable states. For instance, the following function uses an internal reference
to implement a delayed identity function
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
let make_fake_id () =
  let store = ref None in
  fun x -> swap store x ;;
let fake_id = make_fake_id();;
\end{caml_example}
It would be unsound to apply this "fake_id" function to values with different
types. The function "fake_id" is therefore rightfully assigned the type
"'_weak3 -> '_weak3" rather than "'a -> 'a". At the same time, it ought to
be possible to use a local mutable state without impacting the type of a
function.
%todo: add an example?

To circumvent these dual difficulties, the type checker considers that any value
returned by a function might rely on persistent mutable states behind the scene
and should be given a weak type. This restriction on the type of mutable
values and the results of function application is called the value restriction.
Note that this value restriction is conservative: there are situations where the
value restriction is too cautious and gives a weak type to a value that could be
safely generalized to a polymorphic type:
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
let not_id = (fun x -> x) (fun x -> x);;
\end{caml_example}
Quite often, this happens when defining functions using higher order functions.
To avoid this problem, a solution is to add an explicit argument to the
function:
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
let id_again = fun x -> (fun x -> x) (fun x -> x) x;;
\end{caml_example}
With this argument, "id_again" is seen as a function definition by the type
checker and can therefore be generalized. This kind of manipulation is called
eta-expansion in lambda calculus and is sometimes referred under this name.

\subsection{ss:relaxed-value-restriction}{The relaxed value restriction}

There is another partial solution to the problem of unnecessary weak types,
which is implemented directly within the type checker. Briefly, it is possible
to prove that weak types that only appear as type parameters in covariant
positions --also called positive positions-- can be safely generalized to
polymorphic types. For instance, the type "'a list" is covariant in "'a":
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
  let f () = [];;
  let empty = f ();;
\end{caml_example}
Note that the type inferred for "empty" is "'a list" and not the "'_weak5 list"
that should have occurred with the value restriction.

The value restriction combined with this generalization for covariant type
parameters is called the relaxed value restriction.

%question: is here the best place for describing variance?
\subsection{ss:variance-and-value-restriction}{Variance and value restriction}
Variance describes how type constructors behave with respect to subtyping.
Consider for instance a pair of type "x" and "xy" with "x" a subtype of "xy",
denoted "x :> xy":
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
  type x = [ `X ];;
  type xy = [ `X | `Y ];;
\end{caml_example}
As "x" is a subtype of "xy", we can convert a value of type "x"
to a value of type "xy":
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
  let x:x = `X;;
  let x' = ( x :> xy);;
\end{caml_example}
Similarly, if we have a value of type "x list", we can convert it to a value
of type "xy list", since we could convert each element one by one:
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
  let l:x list = [`X; `X];;
  let l' = ( l :> xy list);;
\end{caml_example}
In other words, "x :> xy" implies that "x list :> xy list", therefore
the type constructor "'a list" is covariant (it preserves subtyping)
in its parameter "'a".

Contrarily, if we have a function that can handle values of type "xy"
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
  let f: xy -> unit = function
  | `X -> ()
  | `Y -> ();;
\end{caml_example}
it can also handle values of type "x":
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
  let f' = (f :> x -> unit);;
\end{caml_example}
Note that we can rewrite the type of "f" and "f'" as
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
  type 'a proc = 'a -> unit
  let f' = (f: xy proc :> x proc);;
\end{caml_example}
In this case, we have "x :> xy" implies "xy proc :> x proc". Notice
that the second subtyping relation reverse the order of "x" and "xy":
the type constructor "'a proc" is contravariant in its parameter "'a".
More generally, the function type constructor "'a -> 'b" is covariant in
its return type "'b" and contravariant in its argument type "'a".

A type constructor can also be invariant in some of its type parameters,
neither covariant nor contravariant. A typical example is a reference:
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
  let x: x ref = ref `X;;
\end{caml_example}
If we were able to coerce "x" to the type "xy ref" as a variable "xy",
we could use "xy" to store the value "`Y" inside the reference and then use
the "x" value to read this content as a value of type "x",
which would break the type system.

More generally, as soon as a type variable appears in a position describing
mutable state it becomes invariant. As a corollary, covariant variables will
never denote mutable locations and can be safely generalized.
For a better description, interested readers can consult the original
article by Jacques Garrigue on
\url{http://www.math.nagoya-u.ac.jp/~garrigue/papers/morepoly-long.pdf}

Together, the relaxed value restriction and type parameter covariance
help to avoid eta-expansion in many situations.

\subsection{ss:variance:abstract-data-types}{Abstract data types}
Moreover, when the type definitions are exposed, the type checker
is able to infer variance information on its own and one can benefit from
the relaxed value restriction even unknowingly. However, this is not the case
anymore when defining new abstract types. As an illustration, we can define a
module type collection as:
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
module type COLLECTION = sig
  type 'a t
  val empty: unit -> 'a t
end

module Implementation = struct
  type 'a t = 'a list
  let empty ()= []
end;;

module List2: COLLECTION = Implementation;;
\end{caml_example}

In this situation, when coercing the module "List2" to the module type
"COLLECTION", the type checker forgets that "'a List2.t" was covariant
in "'a". Consequently, the relaxed value restriction does not apply anymore:

\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
  List2.empty ();;
\end{caml_example}

To keep the relaxed value restriction, we need to declare the abstract type
"'a COLLECTION.t" as covariant in "'a":
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
module type COLLECTION = sig
  type +'a t
  val empty: unit -> 'a t
end

module List2: COLLECTION = Implementation;;
\end{caml_example}

We then recover polymorphism:

\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
  List2.empty ();;
\end{caml_example}

\section{s:polymorphic-recursion}{Polymorphic recursion}

The second major class of non-genericity is directly related to the problem
of type inference for polymorphic functions. In some circumstances, the type
inferred by OCaml might be not general enough to allow the definition of
some recursive functions, in particular for recursive functions acting on
non-regular algebraic data types.

With a regular polymorphic algebraic data type, the type parameters of
the type constructor are constant within the definition of the type. For
instance, we can look at arbitrarily nested list defined as:
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
type 'a regular_nested = List of 'a list | Nested of 'a regular_nested list;;
let l = Nested[ List [1]; Nested [List[2;3]]; Nested[Nested[]] ];;
\end{caml_example}
Note that the type constructor "regular_nested" always appears as
"'a regular_nested" in the definition above, with the same parameter
"'a". Equipped with this type, one can compute a depth with
a classic recursive function
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
let rec regular_depth = function
  | List _ -> 1
  | Nested n -> 1 + List.fold_left max 1 (List.map regular_depth n);;
\end{caml_example}

Non-regular recursive algebraic data types correspond to polymorphic algebraic
data types whose parameter types vary between the left and right side of
the type definition. For instance, it might be interesting to define a datatype
that ensures that all lists are nested at the same depth:
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
type 'a nested = List of 'a list | Nested of 'a list nested;;
\end{caml_example}
Intuitively, a value of type "'a nested" is a list of list \dots of list of
elements "a" with "k" nested list. We can then adapt the "regular_depth"
function defined on "regular_nested" into a "depth" function that computes this
"k". As a first try, we may define
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}[error]
let rec depth = function
  | List _ -> 1
  | Nested n -> 1 + depth n;;
\end{caml_example}
The type error here comes from the fact that during the definition of "depth",
the type checker first assigns to "depth" the type "'a -> 'b ".
When typing the pattern matching, "'a -> 'b" becomes "'a nested -> 'b", then
"'a nested -> int" once the "List" branch is typed.
However, when typing the application "depth n" in the "Nested" branch,
the type checker encounters a problem: "depth n" is applied to
"'a list nested", it must therefore have the type
"'a list nested -> 'b". Unifying this constraint with the previous one
leads to the impossible constraint "'a list nested = 'a nested".
In other words, within its definition, the recursive function "depth" is
applied to values of type "'a t" with different types "'a" due to the
non-regularity of the type constructor "nested". This creates a problem because
the type checker had introduced a new type variable "'a" only at the
\emph{definition} of the function "depth" whereas, here, we need a
different type variable for every \emph{application} of the function "depth".

\subsection{ss:explicit-polymorphism}{Explicitly polymorphic annotations}
The solution of this conundrum is to use an explicitly polymorphic type
annotation for the type "'a":
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
let rec depth: 'a. 'a nested -> int = function
  | List _ -> 1
  | Nested n -> 1 + depth n;;
depth ( Nested(List [ [7]; [8] ]) );;
\end{caml_example}
In the type of "depth",  "'a.'a nested -> int", the type variable "'a"
is universally quantified. In other words, "'a.'a nested -> int" reads as
``for all type "'a", "depth" maps "'a nested" values to integers''.
Whereas the standard type "'a nested -> int" can be interpreted
as ``let be a type variable "'a", then "depth" maps "'a nested" values
to integers''. There are two major differences with these two type
expressions. First, the explicit polymorphic annotation indicates to the
type checker that it needs to introduce a new type variable every time
the function "depth" is applied. This solves our problem with the definition
of the function "depth".

Second, it also notifies the type checker that the type of the function should
be polymorphic. Indeed, without explicit polymorphic type annotation, the
following type annotation is perfectly valid
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
let sum: 'a -> 'b -> 'c = fun x y -> x + y;;
\end{caml_example}
since "'a","'b" and "'c" denote type variables that may or may not be
polymorphic. Whereas, it is an error to unify an explicitly polymorphic type
with a non-polymorphic type:
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}[error]
let sum: 'a 'b 'c. 'a -> 'b -> 'c = fun x y -> x + y;;
\end{caml_example}

An important remark here is that it is not needed to explicit fully
the type of "depth": it is sufficient to add annotations only for the
universally quantified type variables:
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
let rec depth: 'a. 'a nested -> _ = function
  | List _ -> 1
  | Nested n -> 1 + depth n;;
depth ( Nested(List [ [7]; [8] ]) );;
\end{caml_example}

%todo: add a paragraph on the interaction with locally abstract type

\subsection{ss:recursive-poly-examples}{More examples}
With explicit polymorphic annotations, it becomes possible to implement
any recursive function that depends only on the structure of the nested
lists and not on the type of the elements. For instance, a more complex
example would be to compute the total number of elements of the nested
lists:
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
  let len nested =
    let map_and_sum f = List.fold_left (fun acc x -> acc + f x) 0 in
    let rec len: 'a. ('a list -> int ) -> 'a nested -> int =
    fun nested_len n ->
      match n with
      | List l -> nested_len l
      | Nested n -> len (map_and_sum nested_len) n
    in
  len List.length nested;;
len (Nested(Nested(List [ [ [1;2]; [3] ]; [ []; [4]; [5;6;7]]; [[]] ])));;
\end{caml_example}

Similarly, it may be necessary to use more than one explicitly
polymorphic type variables, like for computing the nested list of
list lengths of the nested list:
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
let shape n =
  let rec shape: 'a 'b. ('a nested -> int nested) ->
    ('b list list -> 'a list) -> 'b nested -> int nested
    = fun nest nested_shape ->
      function
      | List l -> raise
       (Invalid_argument "shape requires nested_list of depth greater than 1")
      | Nested (List l) -> nest @@ List (nested_shape l)
      | Nested n ->
        let nested_shape = List.map nested_shape in
        let nest x = nest (Nested x) in
        shape nest nested_shape n in
  shape (fun n -> n ) (fun l -> List.map List.length l ) n;;

shape (Nested(Nested(List [ [ [1;2]; [3] ]; [ []; [4]; [5;6;7]]; [[]] ])));;
\end{caml_example}

\section{s:higher-rank-poly}{Higher-rank polymorphic functions}

Explicit polymorphic annotations are however not sufficient to cover all
the cases where the inferred type of a function is less general than
expected. A similar problem arises when using polymorphic functions as arguments
of higher-order functions. For instance, we may want to compute the average
depth or length of two nested lists:
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
  let average_depth x y = (depth x + depth y) / 2;;
  let average_len x y = (len x + len y) / 2;;
  let one = average_len (List [2]) (List [[]]);;
\end{caml_example}
It would be natural to factorize these two definitions as:
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
    let average f x y = (f x + f y) / 2;;
\end{caml_example}
However, the type of "average len" is less generic than the type of
"average_len", since it requires the type of the first and second argument to
be the same:
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
  average_len (List [2]) (List [[]]);;
  average len (List [2]) (List [[]])[@@expect error];;
\end{caml_example}

As previously with polymorphic recursion, the problem stems from the fact that
type variables are introduced only at the start of the "let" definitions. When
we compute both "f x" and "f y", the type of "x" and "y" are unified together.
To avoid this unification, we need to indicate to the type checker
that f is polymorphic in its first argument. In some sense, we would want
"average" to have type
\begin{verbatim}
val average: ('a. 'a nested -> int) -> 'a nested -> 'b nested -> int
\end{verbatim}
Note that this syntax is not valid within OCaml: "average" has an universally
quantified type "'a" inside the type of one of its argument whereas for
polymorphic recursion the universally quantified type was introduced before
the rest of the type. This position of the universally quantified type means
that "average" is a second-rank polymorphic function. This kind of higher-rank
functions is not directly supported by OCaml: type inference for second-rank
polymorphic function and beyond is undecidable; therefore using this kind of
higher-rank functions requires to handle manually these universally quantified
types.

In OCaml, there are two ways to introduce this kind of explicit universally
quantified types: universally quantified record fields,
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
  type 'a nested_reduction = { f:'elt. 'elt nested -> 'a };;
  let boxed_len = { f = len };;
\end{caml_example}
and universally quantified object methods:
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
  let obj_len = object method f:'a. 'a nested -> 'b = len end;;
\end{caml_example}
To solve our problem, we can therefore use either the record solution:
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
  let average nsm x y = (nsm.f x + nsm.f y) / 2 ;;
\end{caml_example}
or the object one:
\begin{caml_example}{toplevel}
  let average (obj:<f:'a. 'a nested -> _ > ) x y = (obj#f x + obj#f y) / 2 ;;
\end{caml_example}
