# System Fω and Parameterization

When I first learned about System Fω, I was confused about the difference between ∀(t.τ) (forall types) and λ(u.c) (type abstractions) for a long time, but recently I finally grasped the difference! Both of these constructs have to do with parameterization (factoring out a variable so that it’s bound), but the two types have drastically different meanings.

# Questions

We’ll start off with some questions to keep in mind throughout these notes. Our goals by the end are to understand what the questions are asking, and have at least a partial—if not complete—answer to each.

First, consider this code.

datatype 'a list = Nil | Cons of 'a * 'a list
• What really is “list” in this code?
• Or put another way, how would we define list in System Fω?

• What separates ∀(t.τ) and λ(u.c)?
• What is parameterization, and how does it relate to these things?

# System Fω

The answers to most of these questions rely on a solid definition of System Fω. We’ll be using this setup.

Kind κ ::= * | κ → κ | ···

abstract       concrete      arity/valence
Con c  ::= ···
| arr(c₁; c₂)    c₁ → c₂       (Con, Con)Con
| all{κ}(u.c)    ∀(u ∷ κ). c   (Kind, Con.Con)Con
| lam{κ}(u.c)    λ(u ∷ κ). c   (Kind, Con.Con)Con
| app(c₁; c₂)    c₁(c₂)        (Con, Con)Con

Some points to note:

• ∀(u ∷ κ). c and λ(u ∷ κ). c have the same arity.
• ∀(u ∷ κ). c and λ(u ∷ κ). c both bind a constructor variable. This makes these two operators parametric.
• Only λ(u ∷ κ). c has a matching elim form: c₁(c₂). (There are no elim forms for c₁ → c₂ and ∀(u ∷ κ). c, because they construct types of kind *. This will be important later.)

It’ll also be important to have these two inference rules for kinding:

\frac{ \Delta, u :: \kappa \vdash c :: * }{ \Delta \vdash \forall(u :: \kappa). \, c :: * }\;(\texttt{forall-kind}) \frac{ \Delta, u :: \kappa \vdash c :: \kappa' }{ \Delta \vdash \lambda(u :: \kappa). \, c :: \kappa \to \kappa' }\;(\texttt{lambda-kind})

# Defining the list Constructor

Let’s take another look at this datatype definition from above:

datatype 'a list = Nil | Cons of 'a * 'a list

We’ve already seen how to encode the type of lists of integers using inductive types:

intlist = μ(t. 1 + (int × t))

Knowing what we know about System F (the “polymorphic lambda calculus”), our next question should be “how do we encode polymorphic lists?” Or more specifically, which of these two operators (λ or ∀) should we pick, and why?

First, we should be more specific, because there’s a difference between list and 'a list. Let’s start off with defining list in particular. From what we know of programming in Standard ML, we can do things like:

(* Apply 'int' to 'list' function! *)

type key = string
type val = real

(* Apply '(key, val)' to 'list' function! *)
type updates = (key, val) list

If we look really closely, what’s actually happening here is that list is a type-level function that returns a type (and we use the type foo = ... syntax to store that returned type in a variable).It’s easy to not notice at first that type definitions are really function calls because in Standard ML, the type function applications are backwards. Instead of f(x), it’s x f. This is more similar to how we actually think when we see a function. Consider h(g(f(x))) (or another way: h . g . f \$ x). We read this as “take x, do f, pass that to g, and pass that to h”. Why not write x f g h in the first place?

Since list is actually a function from types to types, it must have an arrow kind: * → *. Looking back at our two inference rules for kinding, we see only one rule that lets us introduce an arrow kind: λ(u ∷ κ). c. On the other hand, ∀(u ∷ κ). c must have kind *; it can’t be used to define type constructors.

Step 1: define list constructor? Check:

list = λ(α ∷ *). μ(t. 1 + (α × t)))

# Defining Polymorphic Lists

It doesn’t stop with the above definition, because it’s still not polymorphic. In particular, we can’t just go write functions on polymorphic lists with code like this:

fun foo (x : list) = (* ··· *)

We can’t say x : list because all intermediate terms in a given program have to type check as a type of kind *, whereas list ∷ * → *. Another way of saying this: there isn’t any way to introduce a value of type list because there’s no way to introduce values with arrow kinds.

Meanwhile, we can write this:

fun foo (x : 'a list) = (* ··· *)

When you get down to it, this is actually kind of weird. Why is it okay to use 'a list? I never defined 'a anywhere, so wouldn’t that make it an unbound variable?

It turns out that when we use type variables like this, SML automatically binds them for us by inserting ∀s into our code. In particular, it implicitly infers a type like this:

val foo : forall 'a. 'a list -> ()

SML inserts this forall automatically because its type system is a bit less polymorphic than System Fω’s. Some might call this a drawback, though it does save us from typing forall annotations ourselves. And really, for most anything else we’d call a “drawback” of this design, SML makes up the difference with modules.Other languages (like Haskell or PureScript) have a language feature called “Rank-N Types” which is really just a fancy way of saying “you can put the forall a. anywhere you want.” Oftentimes, this makes it harder for the compiler to infer where the variable bindings are, so you sometimes have to use more annotations than you might if you weren’t using Rank-N types.

Step 2: make polymorphic list for use in annotation? Check:

α list = ∀(α ∷ *). list(α)

# Variables & Parameterization

Tada! We’ve figured out how to take a list datatype from SML and encode it in System Fω, using these two definitions:

  list = λ(α ∷ *). μ(t. 1 + (α × t)))
α list = ∀(α ∷ *). list(α)

We could end here, but there’s one more interesting point. If we look back, we started out with the ∀ and λ operators having the same arity, but somewhere along the way their behaviors differed. λ was used to create type constructors, while ∀ was used to introduce polymorphism.

Where did this split come from? What distinguishes ∀ as being the go-to type for polymorphism, while λ makes type constructors (type-to-type functions)? Recall one of the earliest ideas we teach in 15-312:

… the core idea carries over from school mathematics, namely that a variable is an unknown, or a place-holder, whose meaning is given by substitution.

– Harper, Practical Foundations for Programming Languages

Variables are given meaning by substitution, so we can look to the appropriate substitutions to uncover the meaning and the differences between λ and ∀. Let’s first look at the substitution for λ:

\frac{ \Delta, u :: \kappa_1 \vdash c_2 :: \kappa_2 \qquad \Delta \vdash c_1 :: \kappa_1 }{ \Delta \vdash (\lambda(u :: \kappa_1). \, c_2)(c_1) \equiv [c_1/u]c_2 :: \kappa_2 }

We can think of this as saying “when you apply one type to another, the second type gets full access to the first type to construct a new type.” We notice that the substitution here is completely internal to the type system.It’s not super relevant to this discussion, but this inference rule is for the judgement defining equality of type constructors. This comes up all over the place when you’re writing a compiler for SML. If this sounds interesting, definitely take 15-417 HOT Compilation!

On the other hand, the substitution for ∀ bridges the gap from types to terms:

\frac{ \Delta \, \Gamma, e : \forall (u :: \kappa). \tau \qquad \Delta \vdash c :: \kappa }{ \Delta \, \Gamma \vdash e[c] : [c/u]\tau } \frac{ \quad{} }{ (\Lambda u. \, e)[\tau] \mapsto [\tau / u]e }

When we’re type checking a polymorphic type application, we don’t get to know anything about the type parameter u other than its kind. But when we’re running a program and get to the evaluation of a polymorphic type application, we substitute the concrete τ directly in for u in e, which bridges the gap from the type-level to the term-level.

At the end of the day, all the interesting stuff came from using functions (aka, something parameterized by a value) in cool ways. Isn’t that baffling? Functions are so powerful that they seem to always pop up at the heart of the most interesting constructs. I think it’s straight-up amazing that something so simple can at the same time be that powerful. Functions!