TL;DR
#
This post explores how far Java’s type system can be pushed by building a small
Haskell-style type class instance resolution engine entirely in plain Java.
Using only reflection, generic type metadata, and a tiny first-order unifier, we
can automatically resolve type class instances (including higher-kinded ones),
support overlapping instances, and derive witnesses for arbitrarily nested
generic types.
It’s not intended for production, but as an experiment it reveals just how much
structure Java actually preserves at runtime — and how surprisingly close it can
get to type-level programming without language changes.
You can also jump straight to the full implemention here:
https://gist.github.com/Garciat/204226a528018fa7d10abb93fa51c4ca
Update: I published a GitHub repo for the project at
github.com/Garciat/java-type-classes.
Intro: What are Type Classes?
#
Consider:
interface Equatable<T> {
boolean eq(T other);
}
record Point(int x, int y) implements Equatable<Point> {
@Override
public boolean eq(Point other) {
return x == other.x() && y == other.y();
}
}
That's a pretty simple OOP-style generic interface.
However:
record Dup<A>(A fst, A snd) implements Equatable<Dup<A>> {
@Override
public boolean eq(Dup<A> other) {
return fst.eq(other.fst()) && snd.eq(other.snd());
// Error: no method eq() in type A!
}
}
We can't implement eq() for Dup without knowing the fact that
A extends Equatable<A>.
So let's try that:
record Dup<A extends Equatable<A>>(A fst, A snd) implements Equatable<Dup<A>> {
@Override
public boolean eq(Dup<A> other) {
return fst.eq(other.fst()) && snd.eq(other.snd());
// OK
}
}
Now the code compiles.
However, Dup is now only compatible with types that extend Equatable. Dup
is now less capable.
We could have checked at runtime if each object is instanceof Equatable, but
that doesn't work very well with generics. And it may fail at runtime.
Ideally, there would be a way to say:
Dup implements Equatable<Dup<A>> if and only if A implements
Equatable<A>.
Also, if you think about it, it is a bit strange that the definition of
equality for a type A depends on the object instance. As in, eq() is an
instance method.
It would make more sense if equality depended only on the type A itself.
Right?
That's where type clases come in:
interface Eq<A> {
boolean eq(A x, A y);
}
record Point(int x, int y) {
public static Eq<Point> eq() {
return (p1, p2) ->
p1.x() == p2.x()
&& p1.y() == p2.y();
}
}
record Dup<A>(A fst, A snd) {
public static <A> Eq<Dup<A>> eq(Eq<A> eqA) {
return (d1, d2) ->
eqA.eq(d1.fst(), d2.fst())
&& eqA.eq(d1.snd(), d2.snd());
}
}
Let's unpack this:
Eq<A> now compares two values of type A.
- This indicates that we are no longer expecting the implicit
this parameter
to be relevant in equality.
Point no longer implements the interface.
- Now it provides a static constructor (factory) for
Eq<Point>.
- We call this a witness that
Point conforms to Eq.
Dup also does not implement the interface.
- Its static constructor for
Eq<Dup<A>> has a parameter of type Eq<A>.
- This indicates the dependency that we were looking for:
- In order to prove
Eq<Dup<A>>, we must first prove Eq<A>.
- It uses the witness
Eq<A> eqA, which contains boolean eq(A, A), to
implement its own intended behavior.
The code is rather simple, but it marks a dramatic change of perspective:
Equality now belongs to the type definition and not to an object instance.
So, what are type classes?
Type classes can be seen as a pattern that allows us to model shared behavior in
a way that puts types first AND is entirely compositional.
Now, in the above example, how do we actually use Dup's eq()?
Eq<Dup<Point>> pointDupEq = Dup.eq(Point.eq());
pointDupEq.eq(new Point(1, 1), new Point(1, 1));
// Returns: true
We must first construct the witness Eq<Dup<Point>> by chaining calls to the
respective Eq witness constructors of Dup and Point.
Then, we use this witness to access/invoke the actual logic that we're after.
Notice how this pattern composes very nicely:
static <K, V> Eq<Map<K, V>> mapEq(Eq<K> eqK, Eq<V> eqV) { ... }
static <E> Eq<List<E>> listEq(Eq<E> eqE);
static Eq<Integer> integerEq();
static Eq<String> stringEq();
// then:
Eq<Map<String, List<Integer>>> eq =
mapEq(stringEq(), listEq(integerEq()));
Map<String, List<Integer>> m1 = ...;
Map<String, List<Integer>> m2 = ...;
eq.eq(m1, m2);
With witness constructors as our building blocks, we can recursively construct
infinitely many witnesses, as needed.
A note on nomenclature:
In Haskell, type class 'implementations' are called instances.
Here, I am calling them witnesses because that's how Java's Architect, Brian
Goetz, decided to refer to them in
a recent talk he gave about
bringing type classes to Java sometime in the future.
Now, wouldn't it be great if we didn't have to manually construct these
witnesses?
Goal: Programmatically instantiating witnesses
#
Given:
@TypeClass
interface Show<A> {
String show(A value);
// Convenience shortcut
static <A> String show(Show<A> showA, A value) {
return showA.show(value);
}
@TypeClass.Witness
static Show<Integer> showInteger() { ... }
@TypeClass.Witness
static <A> Show<List<A>> showList(Show<A> showA) { ... }
}
Instead of:
Show<List<List<Integer>>> w =
Show.showList(Show.showList(Show.showInteger()));
Show.show(w, List.of(List.of(1, 2), List.of(3, 4)));
// Returns: "[[1, 2], [3, 4]]"
We want:
Show.show(witness(), List.of(List.of(1, 2), List.of(3, 4)));
// Returns: "[[1, 2], [3, 4]]"
Which means that the witness() method is able to automatically construct the
required witness for Show<List<List<Integer>>>.
How do we get there?
First, we must understand some aspects of how Java generics work at runtime.
Aside: Java Generics and Type Erasure
#
It is a well-known fact that Java generics get erased at runtime.
However, there are a few scenarios in which generics do get reified!
Note: 'Type Reification' is the process by which type information is made
concrete and available at runtime.
Given:
interface Stream<T> { ... }
interface IntStream extends Stream<Integer> { ... }
Then:
IntStream.class.getInterfaces()[0];
// Returns: Stream
IntStream.class.getGenericInterfaces()[0];
// Returns: Stream<Integer>
This means that Java did preserve the generic type arguments for the supertype
Stream<Integer>. (We just need to know where to look for it.)
Note that this also occurs with anonymous classes:
var s = new Stream<String>() { ... };
s.getClass().getGenericInterfaces()[0];
// Returns: Stream<String>
This leads us to our first workaround:
Aside: Capturing static types
#
We define:
interface Ty<T> {
default Type type() {
return requireNonNull(
((ParameterizedType) getClass().getGenericInterfaces()[0])
.getActualTypeArguments()[0]);
}
}
Which lets us write:
Type type = new Ty<Map<String, List<Integer>>>() {}.type();
println(type);
// Prints: Map<String, List<Integer>>
Why do we need this?
Because our witness() method will need a runtime representation of the type
that it is trying to instantiate.
So our use case has turned into:
Show.show(witness(new Ty<>() {}), List.of(List.of(1, 2), List.of(3, 4)));
Note that we do not have to specify the type argument for Ty<>. Thankfully,
type inference does that for us.
Type inference works in this case because the List.of(...) parameter has a
well-defined type, and the call to <A> Show.show(Show<A>, A) lets type
inference flow from the second argument to the first.
Aside: Understanding
java.lang.reflect.Type's hierarchy
#
The standard java.lang.reflect.Type hierarchy consists of:
Class<?>GenericArrayTypeParameterizedTypeTypeVariable<?>WildcardType
Where:
Class<?>, sometimes referred to as a 'raw type', represents either:
- A non-generic type like
String or Integer.
- A generic type like
Function<T, R> where its type parameter list [T, R]
can be retrieved via TypeVariable<?>[] getTypeParameters().
GenericArrayType represents an array type E[] whose component type E is
a ParameterizedType or a TypeVariable<?>.ParameterizedType represents a type T<Arg1, Arg2, ..., ArgN>. Its
getRawType() method returns the class or interface T.TypeVariable<?> represents an unbound type parameter of a generic
declaration like a generic class/interface or generic method.WildcardType represents an occurrence of ? within a ParameterizedType.
Moreover, a java.lang.reflect.Method can be queried via
TypeVariable<?>[] getTypeParameters(), Type[] getGenericParameterTypes(),
and Type getGenericReturnType().
For example:
class Example {
static <A> List<A> hello(String s, A[] arr, Optional<?> opt) { ... }
}
Inspecting the Example's hello method at runtime would yield something like:
Method(
name: "hello",
typeParameters:
[TypeVariable(A)],
genericReturnType:
ParameterizedType(
rawType: List.class,
typeArguments: [TypeVariable(A)],
),
genericParameterTypes:
[
String.class,
GenericArrayType(componentType: TypeVariable(A)),
ParameterizedType(
rawType: Optional.class,
typeArguments: [WildcardType()]
)
]
)
Note that the three ocurrences of TypeVariable(A) are unique in the sense that
they compare equal() to each other, but not to other type variable
instances, even if their names are also A.
Subgoal: Parsing
java.lang.reflect.Type into an AST
#
We want to do this for a few reasons:
java.lang.reflect.Type is not convenient for programming:
- It is not a sealed hierarchy, so pattern-matching on it is error-prone.
- Both
Class<?> and GenericArrayType may be array types.
Class<?> may represent a primitive type, like int or float, which does
not participate in generic parameterization (yet).- Type application as represented by
ParameterizedType is variadic.
Single-parameter-a-time is easier to program against.
- When we get to higher-kinded type classes (spoiler!), then we will need our
own type representation anyway.
Here's the AST:
sealed interface ParsedType {
record Var(TypeVariable<?> java) implements ParsedType {}
record App(ParsedType fun, ParsedType arg) implements ParsedType {}
record ArrayOf(ParsedType elementType) implements ParsedType {}
record Const(Class<?> java) implements ParsedType {}
record Primitive(Class<?> java) implements ParsedType {}
}
And these are our parsing rules:
sealed interface ParsedType {
// ...
static ParsedType parse(Type java) {
return switch (java) {
case Class<?> arr when arr.isArray() ->
new ArrayOf(parse(arr.getComponentType()));
case Class<?> prim when prim.isPrimitive() ->
new Primitive(prim);
case Class<?> c ->
new Const(c);
case TypeVariable<?> v ->
new Var(v);
case ParameterizedType p ->
parseAll(p.getActualTypeArguments()).stream()
.reduce(parse(p.getRawType()), App::new);
case GenericArrayType a ->
new ArrayOf(parse(a.getGenericComponentType()));
case WildcardType w ->
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Cannot parse wildcard type: " + w);
default ->
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Unsupported type: " + java);
};
}
}
Note: the rule for ParameterizedType will take a type like T<A, B> and
turn it into App(App(Const(T), A), B).
This means that the generic type T is first applied to A and then to B.
For example, Map<Integer, List<String>> becomes:
App(
App(Const(Map.class), Const(Integer.class)),
App(Const(List.class), Const(String.class))
)
That's it! Really, it's not much, but the added uniformity will help our code
down the line.
Recap
#
Until this point we have:
new Ty<T>() {}: a way to capture a type T from a static context and access
it at runtime.ParsedType: a uniform representation for Java's java.lang.reflect.Types.
Now, let's move on to the problem of type class instance resolution.
Subgoal: Witness resolution
#
Let's consider the following scenario:
@TypeClass
interface Show<A> {
String show(A value);
// Convenience shortcut
static <A> String show(Show<A> showA, A value) {
return showA.show(value);
}
@TypeClass.Witness
static Show<Integer> showInteger() { ... }
@TypeClass.Witness
static <A> Show<List<A>> showList(Show<A> showA) { ... }
}
record Pair<A, B>(A fst, B snd) {
@TypeClass.Witness
public static <A, B> Show<Pair<A, B>> show(Show<A> showA, Show<B> showB) { ... }
}
We observe that, for example, in order to summon a witness for
Show<List<Pair<Integer, List<Integer>>>, then we must apply several witness
constructors recursively.
What is a witness constructor? It is a public static method annotated with
@TypeClass.Witness.
But first, we must find the witness constructors!
How do we do that? Do we need to do a runtime scan of all loaded classes?
That would be way too complicated.
In order to reduce our search scope, we can define the following convention:
When trying to resolve a witness C<T> for some type class C and a concrete
type T, then we only look for witness constructors within the definitions of
C and T and nowhere else.
For example, when looking for Show<Integer>, then we scan the methods of
Show and Integer.
Generally, we will prefer to define witness constructors within concrete types
and not within type classes. However, for a built-in type like Integer, we
have no choice and we must define its witness constructors within the relevant
type classes, as we have done with static Show<Integer> showInteger().
Now that we are able to find the relevant witness constructors, how do we:
- know which of them we must invoke,
- and in which order?
First, we must understand type unification:
Aside: Type Unification
#
Type unification is the process of finding a substitution that makes two types
identical.
For example, given Pair<[A], String> and Pair<Integer, String>, then the
substitution {A -> Integer} would make the first type identical to the second.
Here, I have placed the type A between square brackets to indicate that it
is a type variable. We only substitute type variables!
Unification may fail when it encounters incompatible types. For example,
List<Integer> and List<String> cannot be unified because no substitution
exists that would make them identical.
Conversely, when two types are already identical, unification succeeds with an
empty substitution {}.
Because types are recursive, the unification algorithm must also be recursive
(in nature).
Consider:
unify(
Map<Pair<String, [T]>, List<[U]>>,
Map<Pair<String, Integer>, List<Optional<Boolean>>>
)
// we are unifying two types of shape:
// - Map<K1, V1>
// - Map<K2, V2>
// the type constructors match on either side (Map)
// so we recurse to their type arguments:
// unify(K1, K2) ∪ unify(V1, V2)
// and so on!
= unify(Pair<String, [T]>, Pair<String, Integer>)
∪ unify(List<[U]>, List<Optional<Boolean>>)
= unify(String, String) // first arguments of Pair
∪ unify([T], Integer) // second arguments of Pair
∪ unify([U], <Optional<Boolean>) // arguments of List
= {}
∪ {T -> Integer}
∪ {U -> Optional<Boolean>}
= {T -> Integer, U -> Optional<Boolean>}
// Done!
If any unification step fails, then the entire unification fails:
unify(Pair<[T], Integer>, Pair<String, String>)
= unify([T], String)
∪ unify(Integer, String)
= {T -> String}
∪ err
= err
Following is a code listing for the concrete type unification algorithm
unify() for our ParsedType definition, along with a subsitute() method
that applies a substitution to a type.
Listing: Type Unification algorithm for
ParsedType #
Here we use the Maybe type, which is analogous to Java's Optional. It is
used to indicate that the unify() function may fail with a nothing() (empty)
case. This is different from it returning just(Map.of()) (an empty map), which
signals success but without any substitutions. In short, based on the examples
above, err is nothing() and {} is just(Map.of()).
A key step here is the unification of App. This is the main driver for the
algorithm's recursion.
The following helper methods are relevant to this step:
// applies function `f` if both `ma` and `mb` are present
<A, B, C> Maybe<C> apply(BiFunction<A, B, C> f, Maybe<A> ma, Maybe<B> mb);
// merges two maps
// it fails at runtime if duplicate keys /with different values/ exist
<K, V> Map<K, V> merge(Map<K, V> m1, Map<K, V> m2);
Here's the full code:
class Unification {
public static Maybe<Map<ParsedType.Var, ParsedType>> unify(ParsedType t1, ParsedType t2) {
return switch (Pair.of(t1, t2)) {
case Pair<ParsedType, ParsedType>(ParsedType.Var var1, ParsedType.Primitive p) ->
Maybe.nothing(); // no primitives in generics
case Pair<ParsedType, ParsedType>(ParsedType.Var var1, var t) ->
Maybe.just(Map.of(var1, t));
case Pair<ParsedType, ParsedType>(ParsedType.Const const1, ParsedType.Const const2)
when const1.equals(const2) ->
Maybe.just(Map.of());
case Pair<ParsedType, ParsedType>(
ParsedType.App(var fun1, var arg1),
ParsedType.App(var fun2, var arg2)) ->
Maybe.apply(Maps::merge, unify(fun1, fun2), unify(arg1, arg2));
case Pair<ParsedType, ParsedType>(
ParsedType.ArrayOf(var elem1),
ParsedType.ArrayOf(var elem2)) ->
unify(elem1, elem2);
case Pair<ParsedType, ParsedType>(
ParsedType.Primitive(var prim1),
ParsedType.Primitive(var prim2))
when prim1.equals(prim2) ->
Maybe.just(Map.of());
default ->
Maybe.nothing();
};
}
public static ParsedType substitute(Map<ParsedType.Var, ParsedType> map, ParsedType type) {
return switch (type) {
case ParsedType.Var var ->
map.getOrDefault(var, var);
case ParsedType.App(var fun, var arg) ->
new ParsedType.App(substitute(map, fun), substitute(map, arg));
case ParsedType.ArrayOf var ->
new ParsedType.ArrayOf(substitute(map, var.elementType()));
case ParsedType.Primitive p ->
p;
case ParsedType.Const c ->
c;
};
}
public static List<ParsedType> substituteAll(
Map<ParsedType.Var, ParsedType> map, List<ParsedType> types) {
return types.stream().map(t -> substitute(map, t)).toList();
}
}
Extra: A type representation for static methods
#
record FuncType(Method java, List<ParsedType> paramTypes, ParsedType returnType) {
public static FuncType parse(Method method) {
if (!Modifier.isStatic(method.getModifiers())) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Method must be static: " + method);
}
return new FuncType(
method,
ParsedType.parseAll(method.getGenericParameterTypes()),
ParsedType.parse(method.getGenericReturnType()));
}
}
Subgoal: Witness resolution, part 2
#
Why is type unification relevant?
Type unification will guide the witness resolution process in two ways:
- By checking if any given witness constructor is relevant to our witness goal.
- And if it is relevant, then it will tell us which witness subgoals to
resolve next.
For example, when resolving Show<List<Integer>>, we check:
- Which witness constructors can we find?
- We scan
List:
- It contains zero witness constructors.
- We scan
Show, and it contains:
Show<Integer> showInteger()<A> Show<List<A>> showList(Show<A> showA)
- Which witness constructors apply to our goal?
- Does
Show<Integer> showInteger() apply?
- We try to unify
Show<Integer> and Show<List<Integer>>.
- Unification fails.
- Skip this constructor ❌
- Does
<A> Show<List<A>> showList(Show<A> showA) apply?
- We try to unify
Show<List<A>> and Show<List<Integer>>.
- Unification succeeds with the substitution
{A -> Integer}.
- We can use this constructor ✅
- But this constructor has an argument:
Show<A>
- If we apply the substitution to the argument, we find our next goal:
substitute({A -> Integer}, Show<A>) yields Show<Integer>.
- Add
Show<Integer> to our goals.
- Recurse until we have no further goals.
That outlines the witness resolution algorithm.
Recap
#
Until this point we have:
new Ty<T>() {}: a way to capture a type T from a static context and access
it at runtime.ParsedType: a uniform representation for Java's java.lang.reflect.Types.Unification: an algorithm for type unification of ParsedTypes.- And a rough sketch for the overall recursive witness resolution algorithm.
Now, let's put it all together!
Subgoal: Witness resolution implementation
#
Let's start with the witness constructor lookup code:
@Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
@interface TypeClass {
@Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
@interface Witness {}
}
class TypeClasses {
// ...
private static List<InstanceConstructor> findRules(ParsedType target) {
return switch (target) {
case ParsedType.App(var fun, var arg) ->
Lists.concat(findRules(fun), findRules(arg));
case ParsedType.Const(var java) ->
rulesOf(java);
case ParsedType.Var(var java) ->
List.of();
case ParsedType.ArrayOf(var elem) ->
List.of();
case ParsedType.Primitive(var java) ->
List.of();
};
}
private static List<InstanceConstructor> rulesOf(Class<?> cls) {
return Arrays.stream(cls.getDeclaredMethods())
.filter(TypeClasses::isWitnessMethod)
.map(FuncType::parse)
.map(InstanceConstructor::new)
.toList();
}
private static boolean isWitnessMethod(Method m) {
return m.accessFlags().contains(PUBLIC)
&& m.accessFlags().contains(STATIC)
&& m.isAnnotationPresent(TypeClass.Witness.class);
}
private record InstanceConstructor(FuncType func) {}
// ...
}
Now, let's move on to how we choose relevant witness constructors and find our
subsequent goals:
class TypeClasses {
// ...
private static List<Candidate> findCandidates(ParsedType target) {
return findRules(target).stream()
.flatMap(
rule ->
rule
.tryMatch(target)
.map(requirements -> new Candidate(rule, requirements))
.stream())
.toList();
}
private record Candidate(WitnessRule rule, List<ParsedType> requirements) {}
// Spoiler: we will have another subtype of WitnessRule later on (;
private sealed interface WitnessRule {
Maybe<List<ParsedType>> tryMatch(ParsedType target);
Object instantiate(List<Object> dependencies);
}
private record InstanceConstructor(FuncType func) implements WitnessRule {
@Override
public Maybe<List<ParsedType>> tryMatch(ParsedType target) {
return Unification.unify(func.returnType(), target)
.map(map -> Unification.substituteAll(map, func.paramTypes()));
}
@Override
public Object instantiate(List<Object> dependencies) {
try {
return func.java().invoke(null, dependencies.toArray());
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
}
// ...
}
Then, the code that drives the recursive resolution:
class TypeClasses {
// ...
private static Either<SummonError, Object> summon(ParsedType target) {
return switch (ZeroOneMore.of(findCandidates(target, context))) {
case ZeroOneMore.One<Candidate>(Candidate(var rule, var requirements)) ->
summonAll(requirements, context)
.map(rule::instantiate)
.mapLeft(error -> new SummonError.Nested(target, error));
case ZeroOneMore.Zero<Candidate>() ->
Either.left(new SummonError.NotFound(target));
case ZeroOneMore.More<Candidate>(var candidates) ->
Either.left(new SummonError.Ambiguous(target, candidates));
};
}
private static Either<SummonError, List<Object>> summonAll(List<ParsedType> targets) {
return Either.traverse(targets, TypeClasses::summon);
}
private sealed interface SummonError {
record NotFound(ParsedType target) implements SummonError {}
record Ambiguous(ParsedType target, List<Candidate> candidates) implements SummonError {}
record Nested(ParsedType target, SummonError cause) implements SummonError {}
}
// ...
}
And, finally, the public entry point for all of it:
class TypeClasses {
public static <T> T witness(Ty<T> ty) {
return switch (summon(ParsedType.parse(ty.type()))) {
case Either.Left<SummonError, Object>(SummonError error) ->
throw new WitnessResolutionException(error);
case Either.Right<SummonError, Object>(Object instance) -> {
@SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
T typedInstance = (T) instance;
yield typedInstance;
}
};
}
public static class WitnessResolutionException extends RuntimeException {
private WitnessResolutionException(SummonError error) {
super(error.format());
}
}
// ...
}
Surprinsingly, that's it!
You can find a mostly accurate compilation of all of the above code in
this Gist.
(This was the first version of the type class system that I built.)
Now, let's see it in action.
Examples: First-Order Type Classes & Instances
#
Type Class: Show
#
Given:
@TypeClass
interface Show<A> {
String show(A a);
static <A> String show(Show<A> showA, A a) {
return showA.show(a);
}
@TypeClass.Witness
static Show<Integer> integerShow() {
return i -> Integer.toString(i);
}
@TypeClass.Witness
static Show<String> stringShow() {
return s -> "\"" + s + "\"";
}
@TypeClass.Witness
static <A> Show<Optional<A>> optionalShow(Show<A> showA) {
return optA -> optA.map(a -> "Some(" + showA.show(a) + ")").orElse("None");
}
@TypeClass.Witness
static <A> Show<List<A>> listShow(Show<A> showA) { ... }
@TypeClass.Witness
static <K, V> Show<Map<K, V>> mapShow(Show<K> showK, Show<V> showV) { ... }
}
Then:
Map<String, List<Optional<Integer>>> m1 =
Map.of(
"a", List.of(Optional.of(1), Optional.empty()),
"b", List.of(Optional.of(2), Optional.of(3)));
println(Show.show(witness(new Ty<>() {}), m1));
// Prints: {"a": [Some(1), None], "b": [Some(2), Some(3)]}
Note that this requires the recursive instantiation of 5 witness constructors.
Here's what some debug logs show:
Instantiating: () -> Show[A](String)
Instantiating: () -> Show[A](Integer)
Instantiating: ∀ A. (Show[A](A)) -> Show[A](Optional[T](A))
Instantiating: ∀ A. (Show[A](A)) -> Show[A](List[E](A))
Instantiating: ∀ K V. (Show[A](K), Show[A](V)) -> Show[A](Map[K, V](K)(V))
Type Class: Monoid & Num
#
Given:
@TypeClass
interface Monoid<A> {
A combine(A a1, A a2);
A identity();
static <A> A combineAll(Monoid<A> monoid, List<A> elements) {
A result = monoid.identity();
for (A element : elements) {
result = monoid.combine(result, element);
}
return result;
}
}
@TypeClass
interface Num<A> {
A add(A a1, A a2);
A mul(A a1, A a2);
A zero();
A one();
@TypeClass.Witness
static Num<Integer> integerNum() {
return new Num<>() {
@Override
public Integer add(Integer a1, Integer a2) {
return a1 + a2;
}
@Override
public Integer mul(Integer a1, Integer a2) {
return a1 * a2;
}
@Override
public Integer zero() {
return 0;
}
@Override
public Integer one() {
return 1;
}
};
}
}
record Sum<A>(A value) {
@TypeClass.Witness
public static <A> Monoid<Sum<A>> monoid(Num<A> num) {
return new Monoid<>() {
@Override
public Sum<A> combine(Sum<A> s1, Sum<A> s2) {
return new Sum<>(num.add(s1.value(), s2.value()));
}
@Override
public Sum<A> identity() {
return new Sum<>(num.zero());
}
};
}
}
Then:
var sums = List.of(new Sum<>(3), new Sum<>(5), new Sum<>(10));
println(Monoid.combineAll(witness(new Ty<>() {}), sums));
// Prints: Sum[value=18]
Type Class: PrintAll
#
This example is based on:
https://wiki.haskell.org/Varargs
It abuses type classes in order to implement variadic functions. Please read the
link above to understand how this works.
It's really striking how it just works with our system!
Given:
@TypeClass
interface PrintAll<T> {
T printAll(List<String> strings);
static <T> T of(PrintAll<T> printAll) {
return printAll.printAll(List.of());
}
@TypeClass.Witness
static PrintAll<Void> base() {
return strings -> {
for (String s : strings) {
System.out.println(s);
}
return null;
};
}
@TypeClass.Witness
static <A, R> PrintAll<Function<A, R>> func(Show<A> showA, PrintAll<R> printR) {
return strings -> a -> printR.printAll(Lists.concat(strings, List.of(showA.show(a))));
}
}
Then:
Function<String, Function<List<String>, Function<Integer, Void>>> printer =
PrintAll.of(witness(new Ty<>() {}));
printer.apply("Items:").apply(JavaList.of("apple", "banana", "cherry")).apply(42);
// Prints:
// "Items:"
// ["apple", "banana", "cherry"]
// 42
Type Class: Type Equality!
#
This examples shows how we can encode propositions about types themselves and
have the resolver construct evidence for them.
Reified type equality is very neat construct that I'd like to write more about
soon.
For now, let's appreciate how this neatly encodes
Haskell's own type equality
in Java.
Consider:
@TypeClass
sealed interface TyEq<A, B> {
A castR(B b);
B castL(A a);
@TypeClass.Witness
static <T> TyEq<T, T> refl() {
return new Refl<>();
}
record Refl<T>() implements TyEq<T, T> {
@Override
public T castR(T t) {
return t;
}
@Override
public T castL(T t) {
return t;
}
}
}
TyEq<A, B> represents the proposition that A = B.
And the only possible constructor for it is refl(), which can only prove that
TyEq<T, T> for any T.
How is that useful?
TyEq<T, T> may be trivial in the static context where it is constructed. But
it certainly is not in the context where it may be needed.
Take a look:
class List<T> {
// ...
int sum(TyEq<T, Integer> ty) {
int s = 0;
for (T item : this) {
s += ty.castL(item); // casts T to Integer !
}
return s;
}
// ...
}
// then
var xs = List.of(1, 2, 3);
xs.sum(refl());
// Returns: 6
Within List<T>, we have no idea what T. Code can make no assumptions about
it. However, if we have a proof that T = Integer, then we can sum the
elements up into an int.
Now, we can also request them as witnesses in a witness constructor:
@TypeClass
interface SumAllInt<A> {
A sum(List<Integer> list);
static <T> T of(SumAllInt<T> sumAllInt) {
return sumAllInt.sum(List.of());
}
@TypeClass.Witness
static SumAllInt<Integer> base() {
return list -> list.stream().mapToInt(Integer::intValue).sum();
}
@TypeClass.Witness
static <A, R> SumAllInt<Function<A, R>> func(TyEq<A, Integer> eq, SumAllInt<R> sumR) {
return list -> a -> sumR.sum(Lists.concat(list, List.of(eq.castL(a))));
}
}
Similar to the PrintAll example, this lets us summon variadic functions:
Function<Integer, Function<Integer, Function<Integer, Integer>>> sum =
SumAllInt.of(witness(new Ty<>() {}));
println(sum.apply(1).apply(2).apply(3));
However, notice how in the func rule, we requested TyEq<A, Integer>. This
constrains the A type argument to just Integer.
Funny enough, this is actually only necessary in Haskell due to how integer
literals are overloaded. So I implemented this here for no gain. But it was cool
that it just worked!
Goal: Higher-Order Type Classes
#
Consider the Functor type class in Haskell:
class Functor f where
fmap :: (a -> b) -> f a - > f b
Notice how f is not a type?
It is not one because it is being applied to types a and b, respectively.
This means that f is a type constructor.
A type constructor is a sort of type-level function that builds new types
from existing types.
Here, we mean function in the sense that it has the mathematical property of
being injective. That is, no two inputs map to the same output.
In practice, this means that if we know that the output is the same, then the
input must be the same:
F<X> = F<Y> ⇒ X = Y
This property is what allows us to unify under type constructors.
In Java, class List<T> can be seen as a type constructor. Though we don't use
type application syntax as in Haskell, we do use type parameterization syntax:
List<Integer>. In Java, generic types cannot be partially applied. That is,
for a type class C<T1, T2, ..., TN>, we must provide all N type arguments at
once.
Let's try representing the Functor type class with a Java interface:
interface Functor<F> {
<A, B> F<B> fmap(Function<A, B> f, F<A> fa);
}
Uh-oh:
The type F is not generic; it cannot be parameterized with arguments <B>
Indeed, Java requires that the type parameter F is a type, and not a type
constructor.
Are we cooked?
Not quite.
Aside: What is a kind?
#
Simply: values have types; types have kinds.
42 has type Integer.
Integer has kind * (read: star).
The syntax * for the kind of plain types comes from Haskell.
We could also say Integer has kind Type, but that may be confusing given
how overloaded the word 'type' is in this context.
List<Integer> also has kind *.
So what is the kind of List itself?
List has kind * -> *.
That is, it is a type-level function that accepts a type and returns a type.
Aside: Higher-Kinded Types in Java
#
Here we introduce an encoding of higher-kinded types for Java.
Recall that interface Functor<F> failed because Java insists F is a concrete
type, not a type constructor. This encoding gives us a way to pretend F is
higher-kinded.
Note: I did not invent this encoding. I have seen several projects using it
(see the Related Work section). I am not sure where it originated, but it is
rather elegant.
Consider:
interface TApp<F, A> {}
abstract class TagBase {}
sealed interface Maybe<A> extends TApp<Maybe.Tag, A> {
record Nothing<A>() implements Maybe<A> {}
record Just<A>(A value) implements Maybe<A> {}
final class Tag extends TagBase {}
static <A> Maybe<A> unwrap(TApp<Maybe.Tag, A> m) {
return (Maybe<A>) m; // unsafe if we misuse TApp and tag types
}
}
Let's unpack this:
TApp<F, A> represents type application, hence its name.
- We assume that
F has kind * -> * and A has kind *.
TApp<F, A> represents F<A>.- Therefore
TApp<F, A>, in principle, has kind *.
Maybe.Tag is a sort of proxy type for Maybe as an unapplied type
constructor.
TApp<Maybe.Tag, A>, in principle, means Maybe<A>.- That is why
Maybe<A> extends TApp<Maybe.Tag, A>.
Maybe.Tag extends TagBase just so that we can easily identify this type
via reflection later.
How is this useful?
Now we do have a mechanism (more of a convention) to represent Functor!
Check it out:
interface Functor<F> {
<A, B> TApp<F, B> fmap(Function<A, B> f, TApp<F, A> fa);
}
Remember: TApp<F, A> means F<A>.
And we can also define the witness constructor:
sealed interface Maybe<A> extends TApp<Maybe.Tag, A> {
// ...
default <B> Maybe<B> map(Function<A, B> f) { ... }
@TypeClass.Witness
static Functor<Maybe.Tag> functor() {
return new Functor<>() {
@Override
public <A, B> TApp<Maybe.Tag, B> fmap(Function<A, B> f, TApp<Maybe.Tag, A> fa) {
return unwrap(fa).map(f);
}
};
}
}
Let's unpack that:
- We define a witness constructor for
Functor<Maybe.Tag>.
- Remember:
Functor<Maybe.Tag> means Functor<Maybe>, where Maybe is the
unapplied type constructor.
- We then have to implement:
<A, B> TApp<Maybe.Tag, B> fmap(Function<A, B> f, TApp<Maybe.Tag, A> fa)- And remember:
TApp<Maybe.Tag, A> means Maybe<A>TApp<Maybe.Tag, B> means Maybe<B>
- If we squint our eyes a bit, it does make sense.
- We use
unwrap() to convert from TApp<Maybe.Tag, A> to Maybe<A>.
Maybe<B> is a subtype of TApp<Maybe.Tag, B>, so the return type just
works.
That's it!
Now, we must extend our type class system to understand these typing
conventions.
Subgoal: Extending
ParsedType to support HKTs
#
This is actually not very involved. Check it out:
sealed interface ParsedType {
// ...
static ParsedType parse(Type java) {
return switch (java) {
// New:
case Class<?> tag
when parseTagType(tag) instanceof Maybe.Just<Class<?>>(var tagged) ->
new Const(tagged);
// New:
case ParameterizedType p
when parseAppType(p)
instanceof Maybe.Just<Pair<Type, Type>>(Pair<Type, Type>(var fun, var arg)) ->
new App(parse(fun), parse(arg));
// etc
};
}
private static Maybe<Class<?>> parseTagType(Class<?> c) {
return switch (c.getEnclosingClass()) {
case Class<?> enclosing when c.getSuperclass().equals(TagBase.class) ->
Maybe.just(enclosing);
case null -> Maybe.nothing();
default -> Maybe.nothing();
};
}
private static Maybe<Pair<Type, Type>> parseAppType(ParameterizedType t) {
return switch (t.getRawType()) {
case Class<?> raw when raw.equals(TApp.class) ->
Maybe.just(Pair.of(t.getActualTypeArguments()[0], t.getActualTypeArguments()[1]));
default -> Maybe.nothing();
};
}
}
We only had to add two new pattern-match cases to parse:
case Class<?> tag when parseTagType(tag) ... tagged
-> new Const(tagged)- This replaces any occurrence of
T.Tag with T itself.
case ParameterizedType p when parseAppType(p) ... (fun, arg)
-> new App(parse(fun), parse(arg))- This replaces any occurrence of
TApp<F, A> with
new App(parse(F), parse(A)).
That's it!
I was also surprised! The witness resolution code needs no changes whatsoever!
Although, I was worried about potential bugs coming from misuses of Tags and
TApp. So I came up with a lightweight embedded kind-checking mechanism.
Aside: Kind-checking Java-embedded HKTs
#
Given:
interface Kind<K extends Kind.Base> {
sealed interface Base {}
// KStar = *
final class KStar implements Base {}
// KArr k = * -> k
final class KArr<K extends Base> implements Base {}
}
abstract class TagBase<K extends Kind.Base> implements Kind<K> {}
// Full application of a unary type constructor
// TApp :: (* -> *) -> * -> *
interface TApp<Tag extends Kind<KArr<KStar>>, A> extends Kind<KStar> {}
// Partial application of a binary type constructor
// TPar :: (* -> * -> *) -> * -> (* -> *)
interface TPar<Tag extends Kind<KArr<KArr<KStar>>>, A> extends Kind<KArr<KStar>> {}
TApp now can only apply to tags of kind * -> *, itself becoming a kind
*.TPar applies to tags of kind * -> * -> *, itself becoming a kind * -> *.- This gives us some rudimentary kind-checking in Java
Then:
sealed interface Maybe<A> extends TApp<Maybe.Tag, A> {
// ...
final class Tag extends TagBase<KArr<KStar>> {}
static <A> Maybe<A> unwrap(TApp<Tag, A> value) {
return (Maybe<A>) value;
}
}
And also:
@FunctionalInterface
interface State<S, A> extends TApp<TPar<State.Tag, S>, A> {
// ...
@TypeClass.Witness
static <S> Functor<TPar<Tag, S>> functor() { ... }
final class Tag extends TagBase<KArr<KArr<KStar>>> {}
static <S, A> State<S, A> unwrap(TApp<TPar<Tag, S>, A> value) {
return (State<S, A>) value;
}
}
Notice in this case that State has two type parameters:
State.Tag has kind KArr<KArr<KStar>>
- The first application of
State.Tag must go through TPar.
- The subsequent application must go through
TApp.
Examples: Higher-Kinded Type Clases
#
Type Class: Traversable
#
According to Haskell's
documentation on Traversable:
Traversable is the class of data structures that can be traversed from left to
right, performing an action on each element.
The Haskell type class looks like this:
class (Functor t, Foldable t) => Traversable t where
traverse :: Applicative f => (a -> f b) -> t a -> f (t b)
Notice the use of the following features:
Traversable is higher-kinded.
- Its parameter
t has kind * -> *.
Traversable has two superclasses: Functor and Foldable.- Its method
traverse is quantified on three type variables:
a and b are plain types, of kind *.f is of kind * -> *, as it seen applied as f b and f (t b).
- The type variable
f has the constraint Applicative f.
Traversable is a rather advanced type class.
Let's translate it into Java.
For now, let's ignore its superclasses:
@TypeClass
interface Traversable<T extends Kind<KArr<KStar>>> {
<F extends Kind<KArr<KStar>>, A, B>
TApp<F, ? extends TApp<T, B>> traverse(
Applicative<F> applicative,
Function<A, ? extends TApp<F, B>> f,
TApp<T, A> t);
// And a static helper, for convenience:
// (I omitted some types and arguments for brevity)
static <F, A, B> ... traverse(
Traversable<T> traversable,
Applicative<F> applicative,
...) {
return traversable.traverse(applicative, f, t);
}
}
We see that:
T has kind KArr<KStar> which means * -> *.- The method
traverse:
- Is generic on three type variables:
F, A, B.
F is also declared as having kind * -> *.
- Depends on a witness of
Applicative<F>.
- Declares covariance
TApp<T, B> on a couple of places:
- Because we know that we won't return values of static type
TApp<T, B>
itself, but rather values of type T<B>, which in our HKT convention will
extend TApp<T, B>.
Then:
// Unfortunately for HKTs, we must wrap regular Java lists
record JavaList<A>(List<A> toList) implements TApp<JavaList.Tag, A> {
// ...
@TypeClass.Witness
public static <A> Show<JavaList<A>> show(Show<A> showA) { ... }
@TypeClass.Witness
public static Functor<JavaList.Tag> functor() { ... }
@TypeClass.Witness
public static Traversable<JavaList.Tag> traversable() { ... }
// ...
}
// and:
sealed interface Maybe<A> {
// ...
@TypeClass.Witness
static Applicative<Maybe.Tag> applicative() { ... }
// ...
}
For example:
Traversable.traverse(
witness(new Ty<>() {}), // for Traversable<JavaList>
witness(new Ty<>() {}), // for Applicative<Maybe>
JavaList.of(1, 2, 3),
Maybe::just);
// Returns: Just[value=JavaList[toList=[1, 2, 3]]]
Type Class: Functor, Applicative, Monad
#
As expected:
@TypeClass
interface Functor<F extends Kind<KArr<KStar>>> {
<A, B> TApp<F, B> map(Function<A, B> f, TApp<F, A> fa);
}
@TypeClass
interface Applicative<F extends Kind<KArr<KStar>>> extends Functor<F> {
<A> TApp<F, A> pure(A a);
<A, B> TApp<F, B> ap(TApp<F, Function<A, B>> ff, TApp<F, A> fa);
@Override
default <A, B> TApp<F, B> map(Function<A, B> f, TApp<F, A> fa) {
return ap(pure(f), fa);
}
}
@TypeClass
interface Monad<M extends Kind<KArr<KStar>>> extends Applicative<M> {
<A, B> TApp<M, B> flatMap(Function<A, TApp<M, B>> f, TApp<M, A> fa);
@Override
default <A, B> TApp<M, B> map(Function<A, B> f, TApp<M, A> fa) {
return flatMap(a -> pure(f.apply(a)), fa);
}
@Override
default <A, B> TApp<M, B> ap(TApp<M, Function<A, B>> ff, TApp<M, A> fa) {
return flatMap(a -> map(f -> f.apply(a), ff), fa);
}
}
I currently don't have any interesting Monad examples. I may add one or two
soon.
Recap
#
We have built:
- A simple mechanism to capture static types for runtime access.
- An AST and a parser for Java types.
- Including support for higher-kinded types encoded via 'tag types'.
- Type unification on said AST of types.
- A witness resolution algorithm that:
- For a witness type
C<T>, finds witness constructors in C and T.
- A witness constructor is a public static method annotated with
@TypeClass.Witness.
- Uses type unification to:
- Filter relevant witness constructors.
- Guide the recursive search for witness dependencies.
And altogether:
- We are able to resolve arbitrarily nested witnesses for first-order type
clases like
Eq, Ord, and Monoid and also for higher-kinded type classes
like Functor, Monad, and Traversable.
- The witness summoning syntax looks like:
C<T> w = witness(new Ty<>() {});
- Witness resolution is currently done at runtime. Ideally, we should be able to
do this work at compile time, as that's where the power of type classes lies
in languages like Haskell.
Conclusion
#
This was a lot of fun to work on. I had never before implemented type
classes in a language, and it turned out to be way simpler than I thought. The
key insight was figuring out that type unification was all that I needed.
Stupidly, I did not check Haskell's spec to figure that out. But it did come
somewhat naturally after a bit of thinking, given my experience in implementing
type systems.
This project was partially inspired by
this recent Brian Goetz JVMLS talk
where he presents his early ideas on how to bring type clases to Java. His
proposed syntax is Show<Integer>.witness. And, of course, the mechanism is
supposed to resolve witnesses at compile time.
You can find the complete implementation in
this Gist.
The code also contains several other type class examples like QuickCheck's
Arbitrary type class.
Future work
#
- The resolution mechanism could use some caching:
- For witness constructor lookups.
- For witness instances themselves.
- It would be ideal to shift witness resolution to compile time.
- Perhaps with a javac plugin or something like that?
Related Work
#
Here are some related projects and posts:
Annex: Context Instances
#
Consider this example:
static <A> String example(Show<A> showA, A value) {
return Show.show(witness(new Ty<>() {}), JavaList.of(value));
}
It is equivalent to the following Haskell code:
example :: Show a => a -> String
example value = show [value]
In the Java code, we try to lookup Show<List<A>>, but we don't know what A
is!
Sure, at runtime we may know its real type, but we actually would like
resolution to be static. (Even though we use reflection for witness resolution.)
In the Haskell code, the available instance of Show a as captured by the
function's signature becomes available as a 'context instance' that is used to
derive Show [a] for the call of show.
How can we achieve this in Java?
First, we define a type that can capture a witness along with its static type:
abstract class Ctx<T> {
private final T instance;
Ctx(T instance) {
this.instance = instance;
}
public T instance() {
return instance;
}
public Type type() {
return requireNonNull(
((ParameterizedType) getClass().getGenericSuperclass())
.getActualTypeArguments()[0]);
}
}
It leverages the same mechanism as Ty<T> to capture static types.
Then, we pass it to the witness() method:
static <A> String example(Show<A> showA, A value) {
return Show.show(
witness(new Ty<>() {}, new Ctx<>(showA) {}),
JavaList.of(value));
}
Finally, we update a bit of our type class resolution code:
class TypeClasses {
// New: second parameter
public static <T> T witness(Ty<T> ty, Ctx<?>... context) {
return switch (summon(ParsedType.parse(ty.type()), parseContext(context))) {
// ...
};
}
// New: parsing Ctx<?> into ContextInstance
private static List<ContextInstance> parseContext(Ctx<?>[] context) {
return Arrays.stream(context)
.map(ctx -> new ContextInstance(ctx.instance(), ParsedType.parse(ctx.type())))
.toList();
}
// ...
// New: second parameter
private static Either<SummonError, Object> summon(
ParsedType target, List<ContextInstance> context) {
// ...
}
// New: second parameter
private static Either<SummonError, List<Object>> summonAll(
List<ParsedType> targets, List<ContextInstance> context) {
// ...
}
// New: second parameter
private static List<Candidate> findCandidates(
ParsedType target, List<ContextInstance> context) {
// New: use the context instances along with the discovered witness constructors!
return Stream.<WitnessRule>concat(
context.stream(),
findRules(target).stream())
.flatMap(...)
.toList();
}
// ...
// New: a new case class for WitnessRule
private record ContextInstance(Object instance, ParsedType type) implements WitnessRule {
@Override
public Maybe<List<ParsedType>> tryMatch(ParsedType target) {
// This is a concrete instance, so we only check for type equality
return target.equals(type) ? Maybe.just(List.of()) : Maybe.nothing();
}
@Override
public Object instantiate(List<Object> dependencies) {
// Trivial
return instance;
}
}
}
That's all. A bit noisy, but rather simple.
Now this works:
static <A> String example(Show<A> showA, A value) {
return Show.show(
witness(new Ty<>() {}, new Ctx<>(showA) {}),
JavaList.of(value));
}
println(example(witness(new Ty<>() {}), 123));
Here, the type captured by new Ctx<>(showA) {} is Show<A>, where A is the
unique type variable belonging to the example method.
The Show<List<A>> witness that we are trying to summon needs a Show<A> whose
type could only possibly exist in this static context!
Annex: Overlapping Instances
#
In Haskell, the String type is defined as:
type String = [Char]
That is, a String is just a list of Char.
Now, notice the difference here:
show [1, 2, 3]
-- "[1, 2, 3]"
show [('a', 1), ('b', 2)]
-- "[('a', 1), ('b', 2)]"
show ['a', 'b']
-- "\"ab\"" what?
The generic Show instance for [a] simply intercalates ", " between
elements.
But the Show instance for [Char] behaves differently.
Why is that? This is due to a language extension called
overlapping instances.
It allows otherwise ambiguous instances to coexist:
instance Show a => Show [a] where ...
instance {-# OVERLAPPING #-} Show [Char] where ...
The OVERLAPPING pragma tells the compiler that this instance may override
another instance iff it is more specific.
The rules for instance specificity are explained in the same link.
Now, consider in Java:
sealed interface FwdList<A> extends TApp<FwdList.Tag, A> {
record Nil<A>() implements FwdList<A> {}
record Cons<A>(A head, FwdList<A> tail) implements FwdList<A> {}
@TypeClass.Witness
static <A> Show<FwdList<A>> show(Show<A> showA) { ... }
// Ambiguous!
@TypeClass.Witness
static Show<FwdList<Character>> show() { ... }
}
FwdList (name inspired by
C++'s std::forward_list)
implements a data structure like Haskell's lists.
As it is, witness resolution will fail with an ambiguous witness error.
In order to support overlapping instance, we must apply some changes.
First, let's model Haskell's OVERLAPPING and OVERLAPPABLE pragmas:
@Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
@interface TypeClass {
@Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
@interface Witness {
Overlap overlap() default Overlap.NONE;
enum Overlap {
NONE,
OVERLAPPING,
OVERLAPPABLE
}
}
}
Then, we make it accessible from InstanceConstructor:
private record InstanceConstructor(FuncType func) implements WitnessRule {
public TypeClass.Witness.Overlap overlap() {
return func.java().getAnnotation(TypeClass.Witness.class).overlap();
}
// ...
}
Finally, we implement the overlapping instances deduction algorithm as described
in
Haskell's spec:
private static List<InstanceConstructor> reduceOverlapping(
List<InstanceConstructor> candidates) {
return candidates.stream()
.filter(
iX ->
candidates.stream()
.filter(iY -> iX != iY)
.noneMatch(iY -> isOverlappedBy(iX, iY)))
.toList();
}
private static boolean isOverlappedBy(
InstanceConstructor iX, InstanceConstructor iY) {
return (iX.overlap() == OVERLAPPABLE || iY.overlap() == OVERLAPPING)
&& isSubstitutionInstance(iX, iY)
&& !isSubstitutionInstance(iY, iX);
}
private static boolean isSubstitutionInstance(
InstanceConstructor base, InstanceConstructor reference) {
return Unification.unify(base.func().returnType(), reference.func().returnType())
.fold(() -> false, map -> !map.isEmpty());
}
And we apply it to our candidate resolution function:
private static List<Candidate> findCandidates(
ParsedType target, List<ContextInstance> context) {
return Stream.<WitnessRule>concat(
context.stream(),
reduceOverlapping(findRules(target)).stream())
.flatMap(...)
.toList();
}
And, of course, we annotate our witness constructor:
sealed interface FwdList<A> extends TApp<FwdList.Tag, A> {
record Nil<A>() implements FwdList<A> {}
record Cons<A>(A head, FwdList<A> tail) implements FwdList<A> {}
@TypeClass.Witness
static <A> Show<FwdList<A>> show(Show<A> showA) { ... }
// OK now!
@TypeClass.Witness(overlap = OVERLAPPING)
static Show<FwdList<Character>> show() { ... }
}
Now, our witness resolution code will pick Show<FwdList<Character>> because it
is more specific AND it declares that it may overlap other instances.