# Subtyping vs. inheritance

[subtyping]

In an object-oriented language, after writing a class A there are two different ways we might want to extend it:

• Subtyping means writing a class B which conforms to A's interface, as well as possibly adding some new methods of its own. Per Liskov's substitution principle1, in any context where an A is expected we can supply a B instead.

• Inheritance means writing a class B that specialises A to a particular use, by reusing some of its behaviour and perhaps overriding parts.

The two are similar: if the class B reuses all of A's functionality and adds some new methods of its own, then B will both inherit from and be a subtype of A.

However, they are not the same. Suppose B inherits most of its behaviour from A, but overrides a single method m. If B is a specialised version of A, its m might require a specialised input, accepting only a specialised version of A.m's input. On the other hand, if B is a subtype of A, then in order to conform A's interface its m must accept all inputs that A.m accepts, requiring the input of B.m to be a supertype of that of A.m.

Many object-oriented languages conflate inheritance and subtyping as subclassing. Three representative examples are C#, Eiffel and TypeScript, which differ in how overridden methods in a subclass are typechecked.

C# insists that subclasses' methods accept exactly the same types the overridden method accepts, which is sound but makes some uses of subtyping and specialisation awkward. Eiffel prefers specialisation, insisting that subclasses' methods accept subtypes of what the overridden method accepts, which is unsound2. TypeScript is ambivalent, requiring only that subclasses' methods accept either a supertype or a subtype of what the overridden method accepts, which is also unsound.

The soundness issue is the same one in both TypeScript and Eiffel: Suppose a method A.m may be overridden by B.m, where B.m accepts only a subtype of the original type. Since B is deemed a subtype of A, a B can be used as though it were an A, and by invoking its B.m method through A an argument which is not of the subtype it expects can be supplied.

interface Base {
name: string;
}
interface Sub {
name: string;
doStuff: () => number;
}

class A {
go(_ : Base) {}
}
class B extends A {
go(x : Sub) { x.doStuff(); }
}

let x : Base = { name: "x" };
let b = new B();
let a : A = b;
a.go(x); // crashes

-- Counterexample by W. R. Cook
class Base feature
base (n : Integer) : Integer
do Result := n * 2 end;
end
---
class Extra inherit Base feature
extra (n : Integer) : Integer
do Result := n * n end;
end
---
class P2 feature
get (arg : Base) : Integer
do Result := arg.base(1) end
end
---
class C2 inherit P2 redefine get end feature
get (arg : Extra) : Integer
do Result := arg.extra(2) end
end
---
local
a : Base
v : P2
b : C2
i : Integer
do
create a;
create b;
v := b;
i := v.get(a) -- crashes!
end

class type base = object
method name : string
end
class type sub = object
method name : string
method do_stuff : int
end

class a = object
method go (_ : base) = ()
end

class b = object (self : < go : sub -> int; .. >)
(* does not compile *)
inherit a
method! go (x : sub) = x#doStuff
end

class A {
public void go(Object arg) {}
}
class B : A {
// does not compile
public override void go(String arg) {}
}


Since version 2.6, TypeScript supports the strictFunctionTypes option3, which uses a stricter subtyping check in some cases. However, the counterexample above is still accepted with strictFunctionTypes.

Theoretically, Eiffel recovers soundness by the "system validity check", a whole-program dataflow analysis designed to detect situations like Cook's counterexample (which the Eiffel community terms "catcalls", for "Changed Availability or Type"). However, this check is quite tricky, and it appears that no Eiffel compilers have ever actually implemented it4.

The same issue can crop up with class methods, which are methods that are associated with a class rather than with an instance of that class. Languages with class methods allow classes to be passed around as values, dispatching method calls to the appropriate class as determined at runtime.

When class methods can be overridden in a subclass, this raises the same subtyping vs. inheritance issue: may the subclass specialise its argument type, or must it accept a supertype? A soundness issue along these lines (analogous to the one above) arose in Swift5:

// Counterexample by Ben Pious
class C<T> {

let t: T

init(t: T) {
self.t = t
type(of: self).f()(self)
}

class func f<U>() -> (U) -> () where U: C  {
return { (u: U) in
print(u.t)
}
}
}

class E {
let g = "Expected to Print"
}

class D: C<E> {
override class func f<U>() -> (U) -> () where U: E {
return { (u: E) in
print(u.g)
}
}
}

let d = D(t: E()) // prints random garbage

1

A behavioral notion of subtyping, Barbara Liskov and Jeannette Wing (1994)

4

Catching CATs, Markus Keller (2003)