Services
BiotechFintechAutonomous Vehicles
Open sourceContactCareersBlog
18 March 2021 — by Yann Hamdaoui
Types à la carte in Nickel
nixnickel

This post is the third one of a series on Nickel, a new configuration language that I’ve been working on. In this post, I explore the design of Nickel’s type system, which mixes static and dynamic typing, and the reasons behind this choice.

  1. Presenting Nickel: better configuration for less
  2. Programming with contracts in Nickel
  3. Types à la carte in Nickel

When other constraints allow it (the right tool for the job and all that), I personally go for a statically typed language whenever I can. But the Nickel language is a tad different, for it is a configuration language. You usually run a terminating program once on fixed inputs to generate a static text file. In this context, any type error will most likely either be triggered at evaluation anyway, typechecker or not, or be irrelevant (dead code). Even more if you add data validation, which typing can seldom totally replace: statically enforcing that a string is a valid URL, for example, would require a powerful type system. If you have to validate anyway, checking that a value is a number at run-time on the other hand is trivial.

Nickel also aims at being as interoperable with JSON as possible, and dealing with JSON values in a typed manner may be painful. For all these reasons, being untyped1 in configuration code is appealing.

But this is not true of all code. Library code is written to be reused many times in many different settings. Although specialised in configuration, Nickel is a proper programming language, and one of its value propositions is precisely to provide abstractions to avoid repeating yourself. For reusable code, static typing sounds like the natural choice, bringing in all the usual benefits.

How to get out of this dilemma?

Gradual typing

Gradual typing reconciles the two belligerents by allowing both typed code and untyped code to coexist. Not only to coexist, but most importantly, to interact.

One common use-case of gradual typing is to retrofit static typing on top of an existing dynamically typed language, allowing to gradually — hence the name — type an existing codebase. In the case of Nickel, gradual typing is used on its own, because optional typing makes sense. In both situations, gradual typing provides a formal and principled framework to have both typed and untyped code living in a relative harmony.

Promises, promises!

Since configuration code is to be untyped, and make for the majority of Nickel code, untyped is the default. A basic configuration looks like JSON, up to minor syntactic differences:

{
  host = "google.com",
  port = 80,
  protocol = "http",
}

Typechecking is triggered by a type annotation, introduced by :. Annotations can either be apposed to a variable name or to an expression:

let makePort : Str -> Num = fun protocol =>
  if protocol == "http" then
    80
  else if protocol == "ftp" then
    21
  else
    null in
let unusedBad = 10 ++ "a" in
{
  port = makePort protocol,
  protocol = ("ht" ++ "tp" : Str),
}

In this example, makePort is a function taking a string and returning a number. It is annotated, causing the typechecker to kick in. It makes sure that each sub-expression is well-typed. Notice that subterms don’t need any other annotation: Nickel is able to guess most of the types using unification-based type inference.

Such a static type annotation is also called a promise, as you make a firm promise to the typechecker about the type of an expression.

Static typechecking ends with makePort, and although unusedBad is clearly ill-typed (concatenating a number and a string), it won’t cause any typechecking error.

Can you guess the result of trying to run this program?

error: Incompatible types
  ┌─ repl-input-1:7:5
  │
7 │     null in
  │     ^^^^ this expression
  │
  = The type of the expression was expected to be `Num`
  = The type of the expression was inferred to be `Dyn`
  = These types are not compatible

The typechecker rightly complains than null is not a number. If we fix this (for now, substituting it with -1), the programs runs correctly:

$nickel export <<< ...
{
  "port": 80,
  "protocol": "http"
}

unusedBad doesn’t cause any error at run-time. Due to laziness, it is never evaluated. If we were to add a type annotation for it though, the typechecker would reject our program.

To recap, the typechecker is a lurker by default, letting us do pretty much what we want. It is triggered by a type annotation exp : Type, in which case it switches on and statically typechecks the expression.

Who’s to be blamed

So far, so good. Now, consider the following example:

let add : Num -> Num -> Num = fun x y => x + y in
add "a" 0

As far as typechecking goes, only the body of add is to be checked, and it is well-typed. However, add is called with a parameter of the wrong type by an untyped chunk. Without an additional safety mechanism, one would get this runtime type error:

error: Type error
  ┌─ repl-input-0:1:26
  │
1 │ let add : Num -> Num -> Num = fun x y => x + y
  │                                              ^ This expression has type Str, but Num was expected
  │
[..]

The error first points to a location inside the body of add. It doesn’t feel right, and kinda defeats the purpose of typing: while our function should be guaranteed to be well-behaved, any untyped code calling to it can sneak in ill-typed terms via the parameters. In turn, this raises errors that are located in well behaving code. In this case, which is deliberately trivial, the end of the error message elided as [..] turns out to give us enough information to diagnose the actual issue. This is not necessarily the case for more complex real life functions.

There’s not much we can do statically. The whole point of gradual typing being to accommodate for untyped code, we can’t require the call site to be statically typed. Otherwise, types would contaminate everything and we might as well make our language fully statically typed.

We can do something at run-time, though. Assuming type soundness, no type error should arise in the body of a well-typed function at evaluation. The only sources of type errors are the parameters provided by the caller.

Thus, we just have to control the boundary between typed and untyped blocks by checking the validity of the parameters provided by the caller. If we actually input the previous example in the Nickel REPL, we don’t get the above error message, but this one instead:

nickel> let add : Num -> Num = fun x y => x + y in
add 5 "a"

error: Blame error: contract broken by the caller.
  ┌─ :1:8
  │
1 │ Num -> Num -> Num
  │        --- expected type of the argument provided by the caller
  │
  ┌─ repl-input-6:1:31
  │
1 │ let add : Num -> Num -> Num = fun x y => x + y
  │                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ applied to this expression
  │
[..]
note:
  ┌─ repl-input-7:1:1
  │
1 │ add 5 "a"
  │ --------- (1) calling <func>
[..]

This error happens before the body of add is even entered. The Nickel interpreter wraps add in a function that first checks the parameters to be of the required type before actually calling add. Sounds familiar? This is exactly what we described in the post on contracts. That is, typed functions are automatically guarded by a higher-order contract. This ensures that type errors are caught before entering well-typed land, which greatly improves error locality.

In summary, to avoid sneaking ill-typed value in well-typed blocks, the Nickel interpreter automatically protects typed functions by inserting appropriate contracts.

A contract with the devil

We have dealt with the issue of calling typed code from untyped code. A natural follow-up is to examine the dual case: how can one use definitions living in untyped code inside a statically typed context? Consider the following example:

// this example does NOT typecheck
let f = fun x => if x then 10 else "a" in
let doStuffToNum: Num -> Num = fun arg =>
  arg + (f true) in

doStuffToNum 1

The typed function doStuffToNum calls to an untyped function f. f true turns out to be a number indeed, but f itself is not well-typed, because the types of the if and the else branch don’t match. No amount of additional type annotations can make this program accepted.

See what happens in practice:

error: Incompatible types
  ┌─ repl-input-1:3:10
  │
3 │   arg + (f true) in
  │          ^ this expression
  │
  = The type of the expression was expected to be `_a -> Num`
  = The type of the expression was inferred to be `Dyn`
  = These types are not compatible

f not being annotated, the typechecker can’t do much better than to give f the dynamic type Dyn (although in some trivial cases, it can infer a better type). Since it was expecting a function returning Num, it complains. It seems we are doomed to restrict our usage of untyped variables to trivial expressions, or to type them all.

Or are we? One more time, contracts come to the rescue. Going back to the post on contracts again, contracts are enforced similarly to types, but using | instead of :. Let us fix our example:

let doStuffToNum: Num -> Num = fun arg =>
  arg + (f true | Num) in

We just applied a Num contract to f true, and surprise, this code typechecks! Our typechecker didn’t get magically smarter. By adding this contract check, we ensure the fundamental property that f true will either evaluate to a number or fail at run-time with an appropriate contract error. In particular, no value of type Str, for example, can ever enter our well-typed paradise add. When writing exp | Type in a typed block, two things happen:

  1. The typechecker switches back to the default mode inside exp, where it doesn’t enforce anything until the next promise (annotation).
  2. The typechecker blindly assumes that the type of exp | Type is Type. Hence, contract checks are also called assume.

Put differently, a contract check is considered a type cast by the static type system, whose correctness check is delayed to run-time.

Behold: this implies that something like (5 | Bool) : Bool typechecks. How outrageous, for a typed functional language proponent. But even languages like Haskell have some side conditions to type soundness: b :: Bool doesn’t guarantee that b evaluate to a boolean, for it can loop, or raise an exception. Minimizing the amount of such possibilities is surely for the better, but the important point remains that b never silently evaluates to a string.

To conclude, we can use contracts as delayed type casts, to make the typechecker accept untyped terms in a typed context. This is useful to import values from untyped code, or to write expressions that we know are correct but that the typechecker wouldn’t accept.

Conclusion

There is more to say about Nickel’s type system, that features parametric polymorphism or structural typing with row polymorphism for records, to cite some interesting aspects. The purpose of this post is rather to explain the essence of gradual typing, why it makes sense in the context of Nickel, and how it is implemented. We’ve seen that contracts are a fundamental ingredient for the interaction between typed and untyped code in both ways.


  1. I will use typed to mean statically typed, and untyped to mean dynamically typed.

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.
Interested in working at Tweag?Join us
See our work
  • Biotech
  • Fintech
  • Autonomous vehicles
  • Open source
Tweag
Tweag HQ → 207 Rue de Bercy — 75012 Paris — France
[email protected]
© 2020 Tweag. All rights reserved
Privacy Policy