# Semantic Subtyping in Luau – Roblox Weblog

[ad_1]

Luau is the primary programming language to place the facility of semantic subtyping within the arms of tens of millions of creators.

## Minimizing false positives

One of many points with kind error reporting in instruments just like the Script Evaluation widget in Roblox Studio is *false positives*. These are warnings which can be artifacts of the evaluation, and don’t correspond to errors which may happen at runtime. For instance, this system

native x = CFrame.new() native y if (math.random()) then y = CFrame.new() else y = Vector3.new() finish native z = x * y

experiences a sort error which can’t occur at runtime, since `CFrame`

helps multiplication by each `Vector3`

and `CFrame`

. (Its kind is `((CFrame, CFrame) -> CFrame) & ((CFrame, Vector3) -> Vector3)`

.)

False positives are particularly poor for onboarding new customers. If a type-curious creator switches on typechecking and is straight away confronted with a wall of spurious purple squiggles, there’s a sturdy incentive to instantly change it off once more.

Inaccuracies in kind errors are inevitable, since it’s unimaginable to resolve forward of time whether or not a runtime error will likely be triggered. Sort system designers have to decide on whether or not to reside with false positives or false negatives. In Luau that is decided by the mode: `strict`

mode errs on the facet of false positives, and `nonstrict`

mode errs on the facet of false negatives.

Whereas inaccuracies are inevitable, we attempt to take away them at any time when attainable, since they lead to spurious errors, and imprecision in type-driven tooling like autocomplete or API documentation.

## Subtyping as a supply of false positives

One of many sources of false positives in Luau (and plenty of different related languages like TypeScript or Circulate) is *subtyping*. Subtyping is used at any time when a variable is initialized or assigned to, and at any time when a operate is named: the kind system checks that the kind of the expression is a subtype of the kind of the variable. For instance, if we add sorts to the above program

native x : CFrame = CFrame.new() native y : Vector3 | CFrame if (math.random()) then y = CFrame.new() else y = Vector3.new() finish native z : Vector3 | CFrame = x * y

then the kind system checks that the kind of `CFrame`

multiplication is a subtype of `(CFrame, Vector3 | CFrame) -> (Vector3 | CFrame)`

.

Subtyping is a really helpful characteristic, and it helps wealthy kind constructs like kind union (`T | U`

) and intersection (`T & U`

). For instance, `quantity?`

is carried out as a union kind `(quantity | nil)`

, inhabited by values which can be both numbers or `nil`

.

Sadly, the interplay of subtyping with intersection and union sorts can have odd outcomes. A easy (however quite synthetic) case in older Luau was:

native x : (quantity?) & (string?) = nil native y : nil = nil y = x -- Sort '(quantity?) & (string?)' couldn't be transformed into 'nil' x = y

This error is attributable to a failure of subtyping, the outdated subtyping algorithm experiences that `(quantity?) & (string?)`

is just not a subtype of `nil`

. This can be a false constructive, since `quantity & string`

is uninhabited, so the one attainable inhabitant of `(quantity?) & (string?)`

is `nil`

.

That is a man-made instance, however there are actual points raised by creators attributable to the issues, for instance https://devforum.roblox.com/t/luau-recap-july-2021/1382101/5. Presently, these points principally have an effect on creators making use of subtle kind system options, however as we make kind inference extra correct, union and intersection sorts will develop into extra frequent, even in code with no kind annotations.

This class of false positives not happens in Luau, as we now have moved from our outdated method of *syntactic subtyping* to another known as *semantic subtyping*.

## Syntactic subtyping

AKA “what we did earlier than.”

Syntactic subtyping is a syntax-directed recursive algorithm. The attention-grabbing instances to take care of intersection and union sorts are:

- Reflexivity:
`T`

is a subtype of`T`

- Intersection L:
`(T₁ & … & Tⱼ)`

is a subtype of`U`

at any time when among the`Tᵢ`

are subtypes of`U`

- Union L:
`(T₁ | … | Tⱼ)`

is a subtype of`U`

at any time when the entire`Tᵢ`

are subtypes of`U`

- Intersection R:
`T`

is a subtype of`(U₁ & … & Uⱼ)`

at any time when`T`

is a subtype of the entire`Uᵢ`

- Union R:
`T`

is a subtype of`(U₁ | … | Uⱼ)`

at any time when`T`

is a subtype of among the`Uᵢ`

.

For instance:

- By Reflexivity:
`nil`

is a subtype of`nil`

- so by Union R:
`nil`

is a subtype of`quantity?`

- and:
`nil`

is a subtype of`string?`

- so by Intersection R:
`nil`

is a subtype of`(quantity?) & (string?)`

.

Yay! Sadly, utilizing these guidelines:

`quantity`

isn’t a subtype of`nil`

- so by Union L:
`(quantity?)`

isn’t a subtype of`nil`

- and:
`string`

isn’t a subtype of`nil`

- so by Union L:
`(string?)`

isn’t a subtype of`nil`

- so by Intersection L:
`(quantity?) & (string?)`

isn’t a subtype of`nil`

.

That is typical of syntactic subtyping: when it returns a “sure” end result, it’s right, however when it returns a “no” end result, it is perhaps fallacious. The algorithm is a *conservative approximation*, and since a “no” end result can result in kind errors, it is a supply of false positives.

## Semantic subtyping

AKA “what we do now.”

Relatively than considering of subtyping as being syntax-directed, we first take into account its semantics, and later return to how the semantics is carried out. For this, we undertake semantic subtyping:

- The semantics of a sort is a set of values.
- Intersection sorts are regarded as intersections of units.
- Union sorts are regarded as unions of units.
- Subtyping is considered set inclusion.

For instance:

Sort | Semantics |
---|---|

`quantity` |
{ 1, 2, 3, … } |

`string` |
{ “foo”, “bar”, … } |

`nil` |
{ nil } |

`quantity?` |
{ nil, 1, 2, 3, … } |

`string?` |
{ nil, “foo”, “bar”, … } |

`(quantity?) & (string?)` |
{ nil, 1, 2, 3, … } ∩ { nil, “foo”, “bar”, … } = { nil } |

and since subtypes are interpreted as set inclusions:

Subtype | Supertype | As a result of |
---|---|---|

`nil` |
`quantity?` |
{ nil } ⊆ { nil, 1, 2, 3, … } |

`nil` |
`string?` |
{ nil } ⊆ { nil, “foo”, “bar”, … } |

`nil` |
`(quantity?) & (string?)` |
{ nil } ⊆ { nil } |

`(quantity?) & (string?)` |
`nil` |
{ nil } ⊆ { nil } |

So in response to semantic subtyping, `(quantity?) & (string?)`

is equal to `nil`

, however syntactic subtyping solely helps one course.

That is all nice and good, but when we need to use semantic subtyping in instruments, we want an algorithm, and it seems checking semantic subtyping is non-trivial.

## Semantic subtyping is tough

NP-hard to be exact.

We are able to cut back graph coloring to semantic subtyping by coding up a graph as a Luau kind such that checking subtyping on sorts has the identical end result as checking for the impossibility of coloring the graph

For instance, coloring a three-node, two coloration graph might be carried out utilizing sorts:

kind Purple = "purple" kind Blue = "blue" kind Coloration = Purple | Blue kind Coloring = (Coloration) -> (Coloration) -> (Coloration) -> boolean kind Uncolorable = (Coloration) -> (Coloration) -> (Coloration) -> false

Then a graph might be encoded as an overload operate kind with subtype `Uncolorable`

and supertype `Coloring`

, as an overloaded operate which returns `false`

when a constraint is violated. Every overload encodes one constraint. For instance a line has constraints saying that adjoining nodes can’t have the identical coloration:

kind Line = Coloring & ((Purple) -> (Purple) -> (Coloration) -> false) & ((Blue) -> (Blue) -> (Coloration) -> false) & ((Coloration) -> (Purple) -> (Purple) -> false) & ((Coloration) -> (Blue) -> (Blue) -> false)

A triangle is comparable, however the finish factors additionally can’t have the identical coloration:

kind Triangle = Line & ((Purple) -> (Coloration) -> (Purple) -> false) & ((Blue) -> (Coloration) -> (Blue) -> false)

Now, `Triangle`

is a subtype of `Uncolorable`

, however `Line`

is just not, for the reason that line might be 2-colored. This may be generalized to any finite graph with any finite variety of colours, and so subtype checking is NP-hard.

We take care of this in two methods:

- we cache sorts to scale back reminiscence footprint, and
- surrender with a “Code Too Complicated” error if the cache of sorts will get too giant.

Hopefully this doesn’t come up in follow a lot. There’s good proof that points like this don’t come up in follow from expertise with kind programs like that of Customary ML, which is EXPTIME-complete, however in follow it’s important to exit of your method to code up Turing Machine tapes as sorts.

## Sort normalization

The algorithm used to resolve semantic subtyping is *kind normalization*. Relatively than being directed by syntax, we first rewrite sorts to be normalized, then test subtyping on normalized sorts.

A normalized kind is a union of:

- a normalized nil kind (both
`by no means`

or`nil`

) - a normalized quantity kind (both
`by no means`

or`quantity`

) - a normalized boolean kind (both
`by no means`

or`true`

or`false`

or`boolean`

) - a normalized operate kind (both
`by no means`

or an intersection of operate sorts) and many others

As soon as sorts are normalized, it’s easy to test semantic subtyping.

Each kind might be normalized (sigh, with some technical restrictions round generic kind packs). The necessary steps are:

- eradicating intersections of mismatched primitives, e.g.
`quantity & bool`

is changed by`by no means`

, and - eradicating unions of capabilities, e.g.
`((quantity?) -> quantity) | ((string?) -> string)`

is changed by`(nil) -> (quantity | string)`

.

For instance, normalizing `(quantity?) & (string?)`

removes `quantity & string`

, so all that’s left is `nil`

.

Our first try at implementing kind normalization utilized it liberally, however this resulted in dreadful efficiency (complicated code went from typechecking in lower than a minute to working in a single day). The rationale for that is annoyingly easy: there’s an optimization in Luau’s subtyping algorithm to deal with reflexivity (`T`

is a subtype of `T`

) that performs an affordable pointer equality test. Sort normalization can convert pointer-identical sorts into semantically-equivalent (however not pointer-identical) sorts, which considerably degrades efficiency.

Due to these efficiency points, we nonetheless use syntactic subtyping as our first test for subtyping, and solely carry out kind normalization if the syntactic algorithm fails. That is sound, as a result of syntactic subtyping is a conservative approximation to semantic subtyping.

## Pragmatic semantic subtyping

Off-the-shelf semantic subtyping is barely totally different from what’s carried out in Luau, as a result of it requires fashions to be *set-theoretic*, which requires that inhabitants of operate sorts “act like capabilities.” There are two explanation why we drop this requirement.

**Firstly**, we normalize operate sorts to an intersection of capabilities, for instance a horrible mess of unions and intersections of capabilities:

((quantity?) -> quantity?) | (((quantity) -> quantity) & ((string?) -> string?))

normalizes to an overloaded operate:

((quantity) -> quantity?) & ((nil) -> (quantity | string)?)

Set-theoretic semantic subtyping doesn’t assist this normalization, and as an alternative normalizes capabilities to *disjunctive regular kind* (unions of intersections of capabilities). We don’t do that for ergonomic causes: overloaded capabilities are idiomatic in Luau, however DNF is just not, and we don’t need to current customers with such non-idiomatic sorts.

Our normalization depends on rewriting away unions of operate sorts:

((A) -> B) | ((C) -> D) → (A & C) -> (B | D)

This normalization is sound in our mannequin, however not in set-theoretic fashions.

**Secondly**, in Luau, the kind of a operate utility `f(x)`

is `B`

if `f`

has kind `(A) -> B`

and `x`

has kind `A`

. Unexpectedly, this isn’t all the time true in set-theoretic fashions, attributable to uninhabited sorts. In set-theoretic fashions, if `x`

has kind `by no means`

then `f(x)`

has kind `by no means`

. We don’t need to burden customers with the concept that operate utility has a particular nook case, particularly since that nook case can solely come up in useless code.

In set-theoretic fashions, `(by no means) -> A`

is a subtype of `(by no means) -> B`

, it doesn’t matter what `A`

and `B`

are. This isn’t true in Luau.

For these two causes (that are largely about ergonomics quite than something technical) we drop the set-theoretic requirement, and use *pragmatic* semantic subtyping.

## Negation sorts

The opposite distinction between Luau’s kind system and off-the-shelf semantic subtyping is that Luau doesn’t assist all negated sorts.

The frequent case for wanting negated sorts is in typechecking conditionals:

-- initially x has kind T if (kind(x) == "string") then -- on this department x has kind T & string else -- on this department x has kind T & ~string finish

This makes use of a negated kind `~string`

inhabited by values that aren’t strings.

In Luau, we solely enable this sort of typing refinement on *check sorts* like `string`

, `operate`

, `Half`

and so forth, and *not* on structural sorts like `(A) -> B`

, which avoids the frequent case of common negated sorts.

## Prototyping and verification

Through the design of Luau’s semantic subtyping algorithm, there have been adjustments made (for instance initially we thought we had been going to have the ability to use set-theoretic subtyping). Throughout this time of fast change, it was necessary to have the ability to iterate rapidly, so we initially carried out a prototype quite than leaping straight to a manufacturing implementation.

Validating the prototype was necessary, since subtyping algorithms can have sudden nook instances. Because of this, we adopted Agda because the prototyping language. In addition to supporting unit testing, Agda helps mechanized verification, so we’re assured within the design.

The prototype doesn’t implement all of Luau, simply the practical subset, however this was sufficient to find delicate characteristic interactions that will most likely have surfaced as difficult-to-fix bugs in manufacturing.

Prototyping is just not good, for instance the primary points that we hit in manufacturing had been about efficiency and the C++ normal library, that are by no means going to be caught by a prototype. However the manufacturing implementation was in any other case pretty easy (or no less than as easy as a 3kLOC change might be).

## Subsequent steps

Semantic subtyping has eliminated one supply of false positives, however we nonetheless have others to trace down:

- Overloaded operate purposes and operators
- Property entry on expressions of complicated kind
- Learn-only properties of tables
- Variables that change kind over time (aka typestates)

The search to take away spurious purple squiggles continues!

## Acknowledgments

Due to Giuseppe Castagna and Ben Greenman for useful feedback on drafts of this put up.

*Alan coordinates the design and implementation of the Luau kind system, which helps drive most of the options of growth in Roblox Studio. Dr. Jeffrey has over 30 years of expertise with analysis in programming languages, has been an energetic member of quite a few open-source software program initiatives, and holds a DPhil from the College of Oxford, England.*

[ad_2]

Source_link