Intersection type
In type theory, an intersection type can be allocated to values that can be assigned both the type and the type. This value can be given the intersection type in an intersection type system.
Generally, if the ranges of values of two types overlap, then a value belonging to the intersection of the two ranges can be assigned the intersection type of these two types. Such a value can be safely passed as argument to functions expecting either of the two types.
For example, in Java the class implements both the and the interfaces. Therefore, an object of type can be safely passed to functions expecting an argument of type and to functions expecting an argument of type.
Intersection types are composite data types. Similar to product types, they are used to assign several types to an object.
However, product types are assigned to tuples, so that each tuple element is assigned a particular product type component.
In comparison, underlying objects of intersection types are not necessarily composite. A restricted form of intersection types are refinement types.
Intersection types are useful for describing overloaded functions. For example, if is the type of function taking a number as an argument and returning a number, and is the type of function taking a string as an argument and returning a string, then the intersection of these two types can be used to describe functions that do one or the other, based on what type of input they are given.
Contemporary programming languages, including Ceylon, Flow, Java, Scala, TypeScript, and Whiley, use intersection types to combine interface specifications and to express ad hoc polymorphism.
Complementing parametric polymorphism, intersection types may be used to avoid class hierarchy pollution from cross-cutting concerns and reduce boilerplate code, as shown in the [|TypeScript example] below.
The type theoretic study of intersection types is referred to as the intersection type discipline.
Remarkably, program termination can be precisely characterized using intersection types.
TypeScript example
supports intersection types, improving expressiveness of the type system and reducing potential class hierarchy size, demonstrated as follows.The following program code defines the classes,, and that each have a method returning an object of either type,, or.
Additionally, the function requires an object of type as argument.
class Egg
class Milk
//produces eggs
class Chicken
//produces milk
class Cow
//produces a random number
class RandomNumberGenerator
//requires an egg
function eatEgg
//requires milk
function drinkMilk
The following program code defines the ad hoc polymorphic function that invokes the member function of the given object.
The function has two type annotations, namely and, connected via the intersection type constructor.
Specifically, when applied to an argument of type returns an object of type type, and when applied to an argument of type returns an object of type type.
Ideally, should not be applicable to any object having a method.
//given a chicken, produces an egg; given a cow, produces milk
let animalToFood: & =
function ;
Finally, the following program code demonstrates type safe use of the above definitions.
var chicken = new Chicken;
var cow = new Cow;
var randomNumberGenerator = new RandomNumberGenerator;
console.log); //Egg
console.log); //Milk
console.log); //0.2626353555444987
console.log; //Egg
console.log; //Milk
//console.log; //ERROR: Argument of type 'RandomNumberGenerator' is not assignable to parameter of type 'Cow'
console.log; //I ate an egg.
//console.log; //ERROR: Argument of type 'Milk' is not assignable to parameter of type 'Egg'
console.log; //I drank some milk.
//console.log; //ERROR: Argument of type 'Egg' is not assignable to parameter of type 'Milk'
The above program code has the following properties:
- Lines 1–3 create objects,, and of their respective type.
- Lines 5–7 print for the previously created objects the respective results when invoking.
- Line 9 demonstrates type safe use of the method applied to .
- Line 11, if uncommitted, would result in a type error at compile time. Although the implementation of could invoke the method of, the type annotation of disallows it. This is in accordance with the intended meaning of.
- Line 13 demonstrates that applying to results in an object of type .
- Line 14 demonstrates that applying to does not result in an object of type . Therefore, if uncommented, line 14 would result in a type error at compile time.
Comparison to inheritance
However, in a larger setting, this could be disadvantageous.
Introducing new classes into a class hierarchy is not necessarily justified for cross-cutting concerns, or maybe outright impossible, for example when using an external library.
Imaginably, the above example could be extended with the following classes:
- a class that does not have a method;
- a class that has a method returning ;
- a class that has a method, which can be used only once, returning.
Overall, this may pollute the class hierarchy.
Comparison to duck typing
The above minimalist example already shows that duck typing is less suited to realize the given scenario.While the class contains a method, the object should not be a valid argument for.
The above example can be realized using duck typing, for instance by introducing a new field to the classes and signifying that objects of corresponding type are valid arguments for.
However, this would not only increase the size of the respective classes, but is also a non-local approach with respect to.
Comparison to function overloading
The above example can be realized using function overloading, for instance by implementing two methods and.In TypeScript, such a solution is almost identical to the provided example.
Other programming languages, such as Java, require distinct implementations of the overloaded method.
This may lead to either code duplication or boilerplate code.
Comparison to the visitor pattern
The above example can be realized using the visitor pattern.It would require each animal class to implement an method accepting an object implementing the interface .
The function would be realized as the method of an implementation of.
Unfortunately, the connection between the input type and the result type would be difficult to represent.
Limitations
On the one hand, intersection types can be used to locally annotate different types to a function without introducing new classes to the class hierarchy.On the other hand, this approach requires all possible argument types and result types to be specified explicitly.
If the behavior of a function can be specified precisely by either a unified interface, parametric polymorphism, or duck typing, then the verbose nature of intersection types is unfavorable.
Therefore, intersection types should be considered complementary to existing specification methods.
Dependent intersection type
A dependent intersection type, denoted, is a dependent type in which the type may depend on the term variable.In particular, if a term has the dependent intersection type, then the term has both the type and the type, where is the type which results from replacing all occurrences of the term variable in by the term.
Scala example
supports type declarations as object members. This allows a type of an object member to depend on the value of another member, which is called a path-dependent type.For example, the following program text defines a Scala trait
trait Witness
The above trait
The following programm text defines an object
The object
For example, executing
object booleanWitness extends Witness
Let be the type of objects having the member of type.
In the above example, the object
The reasoning is as follows. The object
Since
Additionally, the object
Since the value of
Overall, the object
Therefore, presenting self-reference as dependency, the object
Alternatively, the above minimalistic example can be described using dependent record types.
In comparison to dependent intersection types, dependent record types constitute a strictly more specialized type theoretic concept.
Intersection of a type family
An intersection of a type family, denoted, is a dependent type in which the type may depend on the term variable.In particular, if a term has the type, then for each term of type, the term has the type.
This notion is also called implicit Pi type, observing that the argument is not kept at term level.