Well that was entirely predictable; as I said last time, if you ask ten developers for a definition of "type", you get ten different answers. The comments to the previous article make for fascinating reading!

Here's my attempt at describing what "type" means to me as a compiler writer. I want to start by considering just the question of what a type *is* and not confuse that with *how it is used*.

Fundamentally, **a type in C# is a mathematical entity that obeys certain algebraic rules**, just as natural numbers, complex numbers, quaternions, matrices, sets, sequences, and so on, are mathematical entities that obey certain algebraic rules.

By way of analogy, I want to digress for a moment and ask the question "*what is a natural number?*" That is, what fundamentally characterizes the numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, ... that we use to describe the positions of items in a sequence and the sizes of everyday collections of things?

This question has received a lot of attention over the centuries; the definitive answer that we still use today was created by Giuseppe Peano in the 19th century. Peano said that a natural number is defined as follows:

- Zero is a natural number.
- Every natural number has a "successor" natural number associated with it.
- No natural number has zero as its successor.
- Unequal natural numbers always have unequal successors.
- If you start from zero, take its successor, and then take the successor of that, and so on, you will eventually encounter every natural number. (*)

Surprisingly, that's all you need. Any mathematical entity that satisfies those postulates is usable as a natural number. (**) Notice that there's nothing in there whatsoever about adding natural numbers together, or subtracting, multiplying, dividing, taking exponents, and so on. All of those things can be bolted on as necessary. For example, we can say that addition is defined as follows:

- (n + 0) = n
- (n + (successor of m)) = ((successor of n) + m)

And you're done; you've got a recursive definition of addition. We can similarly define "less than":

- (n < 0) = false
- (0 < (successor of m)) = true
- ((successor of n) < (successor of m)) = (n < m)

We can define every operation on natural numbers in this way; try defining multiplication, just for fun. (Hint: assume that you've already defined addition.)

We can come up with a similar "axiomatic" definition of "type":

- Object is a type
- "Declared" types are types (note that int, uint, bool, string, and so on can be considered "declared" types for our purposes; the runtime "declares" them for you.)
- If T is a type and n is a positive integer then "n-dimensional array of T" is also a type.

And that's pretty much it as far as "safe" C# 1.0 is concerned. (To be as strict as the Peano axioms for natural numbers we'd want to also throw in some similar safeguards; for example, we don't ever want to be in a situation where the type "one-dimensional array of double" has *type* *equality* with the type "int", just as we don't ever want to be in a situation where the successor of a natural number is zero.)

Things get a bit more complex when we throw in generic types and pointer types, but I'm sure you can see that we could come up with a precise axiomatic description of generic types and pointer types with a little bit of work. That is, type parameter declarations are types, generic type declarations constructed with the right number of type arguments are types, and so on.

We can then start piling on algebraic operations. Just as we defined "less than" on numbers, we can define the "is a subtype of" relation on types.

- T <: object is true for any type T that is not object
- object <: T is false for any type T
- if S <: T and T <: U then S <: U
- ... and so on...

Just as I do not care how numbers are "implemented" in order to manipulate them algebraically, I also do not care how types are "implemented" in order to manipulate them with the rules of type algebra. All I care about are the axioms of the system, and the rules that define the algebraic operators that I've made up for my own convenience.

So there you go; we have a definition of "type" that does not say anything whatsoever about "a set of values" or "a name". A **type is just an abstract mathematical entity**, a bit like a number, that obeys certain defining axioms, and therefore can be manipulated algebraically by making up rules for useful operators -- just like numbers can be manipulated abstractly according to algebraic rules that we make up for them.

Now that we have a sketch of an axiomatic definition of what a type is, what are we going to do with it?

Perhaps the most fundamental purposes of static type checking in a programming language like C# are to associate a type with every relevant **storage location**, to associate a type with every (†) relevant **compile-time** **expression**, and to then ensure that it is impossible for a value associated with an **incompatible** type to be written to or read from any storage location. A compile-time **proof** of runtime type safety (**‡**): that's the goal.

The key word there is **proof**; now that we have developed an axiomatic definition of "type" **we can start constructing proofs based on these axioms**. The C# specification defines:

- what type is associated with every compile-time expression; of course, expressions whose types cannot be determined might be program errors
- what type is associated with every storage location
- what constitutes an acceptable assignment from an expression of given type (
**‡**to a storage location of a given type**‡**

The task of the compiler writer is then to implement those three parts of the specification: associating a type with every expression, associating a type with every storage location, and then **constructing a proof** that the assignment is valid given the rules. If the compiler is able to construct a proof then the assignment is allowed. The tricky bit is this: *the specification typically just gives the rules of the system, not a detailed algorithm describing how to construct proofs using those rules*. If **any** proof exists then the compiler is **required** to find it. Conversely, if **no** proof exists, the compiler is required to deduce that too and produce a suitable compile-time type error.

Unfortunately, as it turns out, **that's impossible in general**. A system where it is possible for every expression to be classified as either "type safe" or "type unsafe" in a finite number of logical steps is called a "decidable" system. As Gödel famously proved, natural number arithmetic as axiomatized above is undecidable; there are statements in formal arithmetic that can be **neither proved nor disproved** in a finite number of logical steps. Assignment type checking is also in general undecidable in programming languages with both nominal subtyping (**‡ ‡‡**) and generic variance. As I mentioned a while back, it turns out that it would be possible to put additional restrictions on type declarations such that nominal subtyping would become decidable, but we have not ever done this in C#. Rather, when faced with a situation that produces an infinitely long proof of type compatibility, the compiler just up and crashes with an "expression was too complex to analyze" error. I'm hoping to fix that in a hypothetical future version of the compiler, but it is not a high priority because these situations are so unrealistic.

Fortunately, situations where type analysis is impossible in general, or extremely time consuming, are rare in realistic C# programs; rare enough that we can do a reasonable job of writing a fast compiler.

**Summing up:** A type is an abstract mathematical entity defined by some simple axioms. The C# language has rules for associating types with compile-time expressions and storage locations, and rules for ensuring that the expression type is compatible with the storage type. The task of the compiler writer is to use those axioms and algebraic rules to construct a proof or disproof that every expression has a valid type and that every assignment obeys the assignment compatibility rules.

Though the axioms of what makes a type are pretty simple, the rules of associating types to expressions and determining assignment compatibility are exceedingly complex; that's why the word "type" appears 5000 times in the specification. To a large extent, the C# language is *defined* by its type rules.

----------------------

(*) I am of course oversimplifying here; more formally, the real axiom formally states that **proof by induction works on natural numbers**. That is: if a property is true of zero, and the property being true for a number implies the truth for its successor, then the property holds for all numbers.

(**) It is instructive to consider why the third, fourth and fifth postulates are necessary. Without the third postulate, there need only be one number: zero, which is its own successor! Without the fourth postulate we could say that there are only two numbers: the successor of zero is one, the successor of one is one. Without the fifth postulate there could be *two* zeros: "red zero" and "blue zero". The successor of red zero is red one, the successor of blue zero is blue one, and so on. In each case, the system without the axiom satisfies the remaining four axioms, but in each case it seems very contrary to our intuition about what a "natural number" is.

(†) We fudge this in C# of course; null literals, anonymous functions and method groups are technically classified as "expressions without any type". However, in a legal program they must occur in a context where the type of the expression can be inferred from its surrounding context.

(**‡**) The cast operator gives the lie to this, of course; one meaning of the cast operator is "there is no compile-time proof that this is type safe; I assert that it is safe, so generate code that checks my assertion at runtime." Also, unsafe array covariance makes this goal unreachable.

(**‡ ‡**) Again, this is fudged in a few places. For example, it is not legal to assign an expression of type int to a variable of type short,

*unless*the expression of type int is a compile-time constant known to fit into a short.

(**‡ ‡‡**) That is, a language where you state the base type of a newly declared type. Like "interface IFoo<T> : IBar<T>" uses nominal subtyping.

The definition of a natural number feels quite… unnatural ๐

Do you have an example of code that would produce the "expression was too complex to analyze" error?

Yes; see the linked blog article for an example. The linked paper has more examples. — Eric

I'm re-re-re-reading "Godel, Esher, Bach" right now, so it's interesting to see it echoed in your article…

That definition of natural numbers has something missing, I think – unless I'm missing something myself, wouldn't it make 0, 1, 2, 1, 2 … a valid set of natural numbers?

No, "all unequal natural numbers always have unequal successors". In your case 0 and 2 are unequal but have equal successors.

@configurator:

No, that sequence does not satisfy the fourth postulate.

Of course I was missing something. I was misunderstanding the fourth rule. I retract my previous comment ๐

Forgive me if I'm being obtuse, but what additional restrictions could you put on types that would make the system decidable? And would they be changes to C# or the CLR?

The fix is to detect and disallow all subtyping topologies that could potentially produce "infinitary" expansions. Detecting such topologies is of only polynomial complexity. The CLI specification contains a sketch of the algorithm that does the detection. I do not know whether implementations of the CLR actually use that algorithm, or whether they just keep track of how many times the verifier had to recurse and cut it off when it reaches a certain threshhold. I have implemented the algorithm in prototype versions of the C# compiler and it's pretty straightforward, but we've never taken on the expense of doing it for reals. — Eric

Well, of course you can (largely) ignore values w/r/t types when you are implementing the type system – though I imagine that view doesn't help much when you are doing codegen, and it certainly doesn't help when actually *using* types – unless you are hinting at adding language support for operating on types ๐

There is actually one more non-type-safe feature of C#: foreach

blog.slaks.net/…/c-is-not-type-safe.html

I'd think one of the reasons for the loosen type-check if foreach to exist is to make it compatible of Office Automation.

You know… in older version of MS Office Interop, quite a few properties that have nature of "Collection" is not being recognized as such. You code can only find out if it were an array when the COM object is there and you tries to enumerate it. Moving the check to run-time instead of compile-time help you to program code that breaks unless you have this "feature".

Nothing is ever perfect but this explanation is pretty close.

A type is a set of rules that define how instances of the type are used.

Excellent post, Eric! It is fascinating to see a formal mathmatical definition of type.

I was thinking one more rule should be added to the "axiomatic" definition of "type":

Every type except object has a "parent" type associated with it.

Except that pointer types do not have a base class. And interface types arguably do not have a base class. Type parameter types have an "effective" base class which is subtly different from a real base class. Also, you'd then have to note that base classes cannot be cyclic, and the definition of cyclic is a bit tricky. My point is that though the base type is certainly important in the analysis of types, it is in some sense not *fundamental* to what a type is as a mathematical object. Similarly, multiplication is not *fundamental* to natural numbers. The definition of the natural numbers doesn't include multiplicative rules; we add those on later. Similarly we could "bolt on" a base class relation to a formal definition of types; we don't have to include them in the definition. (And similarly for outer/nested types.) — Eric

Why did the duck-typer switch to C#?

She prefers the strong, won't-fail-silently type.

Hmmm, I see what you mean. So to be even more generic, I guess we could just start with one rule:

"Declared" types are types

In fact that seems to be how the C# Specification handles it.

Do you have a link or reference to something which discusses such topologies? I find that really interesting and it's possibly quite useful as well!

Would an interface such as public interface IC<X> : IN<IN<IC<IC<X>>>> {} not be allowed in that case?

I believe I found an exception to the 3rd type rule: If T is a type and n is a positive integer then "n-dimensional array of T" is also a type. A "static class" type can't be used as an array type. I was wondering if your definition of type is excluding "static class"?

The C# Specification has the ambiguous statement: "A static class cannot be instantiated, cannot be used as a type and can contain only static members." And yet a static class can be used in "typeof" and even "default". So is a "static class" a type or not?

DRBlaise: A static class is not a type. It's got a Type (which is why you can use typeof), but it's not a type (meaning you can't use it to describe a storage location).

configurator: I did some more investigation that led me to the conclusion that a "static class" is just a regular type that is both abstract and sealed. It's base class is object, but it has no instance constructors. The 4.0 C# Spec section 10.1.1.3.1 does not match compiler behavior on several points: ".., it is an error for a static class to be used as a base class, a constituent type (ยง10.3.8) of a member, a generic type argument, or a type parameter constraint. Likewise, a static class cannot be used in an array type, a pointer type, a new expression, a cast expression, an is expression, an as expression, a sizeof expression, or a default value expression."

1. "generic type argument" – you can use reflection to create a valid generic type with a "static class" as the generic type.

2. "an array type" – you can use Array.CreateInstance or reflection to create a "static class" array and use SetValue and GetValue to reference the values in the Array which will always be null.

3. "is expression" – (x is Enumerable) is valid, but warns it is always false.

4. "as expression" – (x as Enumerable) is valid, but will always be null.

5. "default value expression" – default(Enumerable) is valid and will be null.

So can you do "var x = default(Enumerable)" and get a declared variable of that type?

Or perhaps create a method void Foo<T>(T t) {…} and then call it with default(Enumerable) in order to bind Enumerable to a generic type parameter?

… tested those things. Apparently you can't – the "var" and the method call, respectively, are illegal. It's weird that default(Enumerable) is permitted and you can compare it against null, for example, but you can't store that value in a variable.

@DRBlaise – I don't think that anything that uses reflection is a valid counterpoint. The C# language spec defines what can be expressed in C#, not what the runtime and base class library support. So I dispute that your 1 and 2 are violations of the language spec (although it might still be a good idea if the runtime disallowed them). I agree that your 3, 4 and 5 seem like compiler bugs.

It is weird that you can get the default value of a static class! I'll mention that to Mads; it seems like an oversight that it was not made illegal. Thanks! — Eric

I was looking at the notes for .Net 4.5 posted here: msdn.microsoft.com/…/br230302%28v=VS.85%29.aspx

I think I see massive breaking changes to System.Type. Is this line of posts somehow leading up to a discussion of those changes?

It is not. — Eric

@Marvin – That link is for WinRT which is a new runtime. It's not .NET 4.5.

I always used the following to define "type" in a programming context:

A type is a schema and associated set of rules for interpreting the meaning behind the bits of a segment of memory.

@Eric: I've just asked a question on SO about the type of null literal, which seems to be quite close to the topic of this discussion — maybe you could comment there? stackoverflow.com/…/what-is-the-type-of-null-literal