nomicon/subtyping.md

% Subtyping and Variance

Although Rust doesn't have any notion of inheritance, it *does* include subtyping.
In Rust, subtyping derives entirely from *lifetimes*. Since lifetimes are scopes,
we can partially order them based on the *contains* (outlives) relationship. We
can even express this as a generic bound.

Subtyping on lifetimes in terms of that relationship: if `'a: 'b`
("a contains b" or "a outlives b"), then `'a` is a subtype of `'b`. This is a
large source of confusion, because it seems intuitively backwards to many:
the bigger scope is a *sub type* of the smaller scope.

This does in fact make sense, though. The intuitive reason for this is that if
you expect an `&'a u8`, then it's totally fine for me to hand you an `&'static u8`,
in the same way that if you expect an Animal in Java, it's totally fine for me to
hand you a Cat. Cats are just Animals *and more*, just as `'static` is just `'a`
*and more*.

(Note, the subtyping relationship and typed-ness of lifetimes is a fairly arbitrary
construct that some disagree with. However it simplifies our analysis to treat
lifetimes and types uniformly.)

Higher-ranked lifetimes are also subtypes of every concrete lifetime. This is because
taking an arbitrary lifetime is strictly more general than taking a specific one.



# Variance

Variance is where things get a bit complicated.

Variance is a property that *type constructors* have. A type constructor in Rust
is a generic type with unbound arguments. For instance `Vec` is a type constructor
that takes a `T` and returns a `Vec<T>`. `&` and `&mut` are type constructors that
take a two types: a lifetime, and a type to point to.

A type constructor's *variance* is how the subtyping of its inputs affects the
subtyping of its outputs. There are two kinds of variance in Rust:

* F is *variant* if `T` being a subtype of `U` implies `F<T>` is a subtype of `F<U>`
* F is *invariant* otherwise (no subtyping relation can be derived)

(For those of you who are familiar with variance from other languages, what we refer
to as "just" variance is in fact *covariance*. Rust does not have contravariance.
Historically Rust did have some contravariance but it was scrapped due to poor
interactions with other features.)

Some important variances:

* `&` is variant (as is `*const` by metaphor)
* `&mut` is invariant
* `Fn(T) -> U` is invariant with respect to `T`, but variant with respect to `U`
* `Box`, `Vec`, and all other collections are variant
* `UnsafeCell`, `Cell`, `RefCell`, `Mutex` and all "interior mutability"
  types are invariant (as is `*mut` by metaphor)

To understand why these variances are correct and desirable, we will consider several
examples. We have already covered why `&` should be variant when introducing subtyping:
it's desirable to be able to pass longer-lived things where shorter-lived things are
needed.

To see why `&mut` should be invariant, consider the following code:

```rust,ignore
fn overwrite<T: Copy>(input: &mut T, new: &mut T) {
    *input = *new;
}

fn main() {
    let mut forever_str: &'static str = "hello";
    {
        let string = String::from("world");
        overwrite(&mut forever_str, &mut &*string);
    }
    // Oops, printing free'd memory
    println!("{}", forever_str);
}
```

The signature of `overwrite` is clearly valid: it takes mutable references to
two values of the same type, and overwrites one with the other. If `&mut` was
variant, then `&mut &'a str` would be a subtype of `&mut &'static str`, since
`&'a str` is a subtype of `&'static str`. Therefore the lifetime of
`forever_str` would successfully be "shrunk" down to the shorter lifetime of
`string`, and `overwrite` would be called successfully. `string` would
subsequently be dropped, and `forever_str` would point to freed memory when we
print it! Therefore `&mut` should be invariant.

This is the general theme of variance vs
invariance: if variance would allow you to *store* a short-lived value in a
longer-lived slot, then you must be invariant.

`Box` and `Vec` are interesting cases because they're variant, but you can
definitely store values in them! This is where Rust gets really clever: it's
fine for them to be variant because you can only store values
in them *via a mutable reference*! The mutable reference makes the whole type
invariant, and therefore prevents you from smuggling a short-lived type into
them.

Being variant *does* allows them to be weakened when shared immutably.
So you can pass a `&Box<&'static str>` where a `&Box<&'a str>` is expected.

However what should happen when passing *by-value* is less obvious. It turns out
that, yes, you can use subtyping when passing by-value. That is, this works:

```rust
fn get_box<'a>(&'a u8) -> Box<&'a str> {
    // string literals are `&'static str`s
    Box::new("hello")
}
```

Weakening when you pass by-value is fine because there's no one else who
"remembers" the old lifetime in the Box. The reason a variant `&mut` was
trouble was because there's always someone else who remembers the original
subtype: the actual owner.

The invariance of the cell types can be seen as follows: `&` is like an `&mut` for a
cell, because you can still store values in them through an `&`. Therefore cells
must be invariant to avoid lifetime smuggling.

`Fn` is the most subtle case because it has mixed variance. To see why
`Fn(T) -> U` should be invariant over T, consider the following function
signature:

```rust
// 'a is derived from some parent scope
fn foo(&'a str) -> usize;
```

This signature claims that it can handle any `&str` that lives *at least* as long
as `'a`. Now if this signature was variant with respect to `&str`, that would mean

```rust
fn foo(&'static str) -> usize;
```

could be provided in its place, as it would be a subtype. However this function
has a *stronger* requirement: it says that it can *only* handle `&'static str`s,
and nothing else. Therefore functions are not variant over their arguments.

To see why `Fn(T) -> U` should be *variant* over U, consider the following
function signature:

```rust
// 'a is derived from some parent scope
fn foo(usize) -> &'a str;
```

This signature claims that it will return something that outlives `'a`. It is
therefore completely reasonable to provide

```rust
fn foo(usize) -> &'static str;
```

in its place. Therefore functions *are* variant over their return type.

`*const` has the exact same semantics as `&`, so variance follows. `*mut` on the
other hand can dereference to an &mut whether shared or not, so it is marked
as invariant just like cells.

This is all well and good for the types the standard library provides, but
how is variance determined for type that *you* define? A struct, informally
speaking, inherits the variance of its fields. If a struct `Foo`
has a generic argument `A` that is used in a field `a`, then Foo's variance
over `A` is exactly `a`'s variance. However this is complicated if `A` is used
in multiple fields.

* If all uses of A are variant, then Foo is variant over A
* Otherwise, Foo is invariant over A

```rust
struct Foo<'a, 'b, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H> {
    a: &'a A,     // variant over 'a and A
    b: &'b mut B, // invariant over 'b and B
    c: *const C,  // variant over C
    d: *mut D,    // invariant over D
    e: Vec<E>,    // variant over E
    f: Cell<F>,   // invariant over F
    g: G          // variant over G
    h1: H         // would also be variant over H except...
    h2: Cell<H>   // invariant over H, because invariance wins
}
```