In computer science and logic, a dependent type is a type whose definition depends on a value. It is an overlapping feature of type theory and type systems. In intuitionistic type theory, dependent types are used to encode logic's quantifiers like "for all" and "there exists". In functional programming languages like Agda, ATS, Coq, F*, Epigram, and Idris, dependent types may help reduce bugs by enabling the programmer to assign types that further restrain the set of possible implementations.
Two common examples of dependent types are dependent functions and dependent pairs. The return type of a dependent function may depend on the value (not just type) of one of its arguments. For instance, a function that takes a positive integer may return an array of length , where the array length is part of the type of the array. (Note that this is different from polymorphism and generic programming, both of which include the type as an argument.) A dependent pair may have a second value of which the type depends on the first value. Sticking with the array example, a dependent pair may be used to pair an array with its length in a type-safe way.
Dependent types add complexity to a type system. Deciding the equality of dependent types in a program may require computations. If arbitrary values are allowed in dependent types, then deciding type equality may involve deciding whether two arbitrary programs produce the same result; hence type checking may become undecidable.
In 1934, Haskell Curry noticed that the types used in typed lambda calculus, and in its combinatory logic counterpart, followed the same pattern as axioms in propositional logic. Going further, for every proof in the logic, there was a matching function (term) in the programming language. One of Curry's examples was the correspondence between simply typed lambda calculus and intuitionistic logic.
Predicate logic is an extension of propositional logic, adding quantifiers. Howard and de Bruijn extended lambda calculus to match this more powerful logic by creating types for dependent functions, which correspond to "for all", and dependent pairs, which correspond to "there exists".
(Because of this and other work by Howard, propositions-as-types is known as the Curry–Howard correspondence.)
Loosely speaking, dependent types are similar to the type of an indexed family of sets. More formally, given a type in a universe of types , one may have a family of types , which assigns to each term a type . We say that the type B(a) varies with a.
A function whose type of return value varies with its argument (i.e. there is no fixed codomain) is a dependent function and the type of this function is called dependent product type, pi-type or dependent function type. From a family of types we may construct the type of dependent functions , whose terms are functions which take a term and return a term in . For this example, the dependent function type is typically written as or If is a constant function, the corresponding dependent product type is equivalent to an ordinary function type. That is, is judgmentally equal to when B does not depend on x.
For example, if we write for n-tuples of real numbers, then would be the type of a function which, given a natural number n, returns a tuple of real numbers of size n. The usual function space arises as a special case when the range type does not actually depend on the input. E.g. is the type of functions from natural numbers to the real numbers, which is written as in typed lambda calculus.
The dual of the dependent product type is the dependent pair type, dependent sum type, sigma-type, or (confusingly) dependent product type. Sigma-types can also be understood as existential quantifiers. Continuing the above example, if, in the universe of types , there is a type and a family of types , then there is a dependent pair type
The dependent pair type captures the idea of an ordered pair where the type of the second term is dependent on the value of the first. If
Example as existential quantification
Let be some type, and let . By the Curry–Howard correspondence, B can be interpreted as a logical predicate on terms of A. For a given , whether the type B(a) is inhabited indicates whether a satisfies this predicate. The correspondence can be extended to existential quantification and dependent pairs: the proposition is true if and only if the type is inhabited.
For example, is less than or equal to if and only if there exists another natural number such that m + k = n. In logic, this statement is codified by existential quantification:
Systems of the lambda cube
Henk Barendregt developed the lambda cube as a means of classifying type systems along three axes. The eight corners of the resulting cube-shaped diagram each correspond to a type system, with simply typed lambda calculus in the least expressive corner, and calculus of constructions in the most expressive. The three axes of the cube correspond to three different augmentations of the simply typed lambda calculus: the addition of dependent types, the addition of polymorphism, and the addition of higher kinded type constructors (functions from types to types, for example). The lambda cube is generalized further by pure type systems.
First order dependent type theory
The system of pure first order dependent types, corresponding to the logical framework LF, is obtained by generalising the function space type of the simply typed lambda calculus to the dependent product type.
Second order dependent type theory
The system of second order dependent types is obtained from by allowing quantification over type constructors. In this theory the dependent product operator subsumes both the operator of simply typed lambda calculus and the binder of System F.
Higher order dependently typed polymorphic lambda calculus
The higher order system extends to all four forms of abstraction from the lambda cube: functions from terms to terms, types to types, terms to types and types to terms. The system corresponds to the calculus of constructions whose derivative, the calculus of inductive constructions is the underlying system of the Coq proof assistant.
Simultaneous programming language and logic
The Curry–Howard correspondence implies that types can be constructed that express arbitrarily complex mathematical properties. If the user can supply a constructive proof that a type is inhabited (i.e., that a value of that type exists) then a compiler can check the proof and convert it into executable computer code that computes the value by carrying out the construction. The proof checking feature makes dependently typed languages closely related to proof assistants. The code-generation aspect provides a powerful approach to formal program verification and proof-carrying code, since the code is derived directly from a mechanically verified mathematical proof.
Comparison of languages with dependent types
|Language||Actively developed||Paradigm[fn 1]||Tactics||Proof terms||Termination checking||Types can depend on[fn 2]||Universes||Proof irrelevance||Program extraction||Extraction erases irrelevant terms|
|Ada 2012||Yes||Imperative||Yes||Yes (optional)||?||Any term[fn 3]||?||?||Ada||?|
|ATS||Yes||Functional / imperative||No||Yes||Yes||Static terms||?||Yes||Yes||Yes|
|Cayenne||No||Purely functional||No||Yes||No||Any term||No||No||?||?|
|Yes||Purely functional||Yes||Yes||Yes||Any term||Yes[fn 6]||No||Haskell, Scheme and OCaml||Yes|
|Dependent ML||No[fn 7]||?||?||Yes||?||Natural numbers||?||?||?||?|
|F*||Yes||Functional and imperative||Yes||Yes||Yes (optional)||Any pure term||Yes||Yes||OCaml, F#, and C||Yes|
|Guru||No||Purely functional||hypjoin||Yes||Yes||Any term||No||Yes||Carraway||Yes|
|Idris||Yes||Purely functional||Yes||Yes||Yes (optional)||Any term||Yes||No||Yes||Yes, aggressively|
|Lean||Yes||Purely functional||Yes||Yes||Yes||Any term||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes|
|Matita||Yes||Purely functional||Yes||Yes||Yes||Any term||Yes||Yes||OCaml||Yes|
|NuPRL||Yes||Purely functional||Yes||Yes||Yes||Any term||Yes||?||Yes||?|
|Sage||No[fn 8]||Purely functional||No||No||No||?||No||?||?||?|
|Twelf||Yes||Logic programming||?||Yes||Yes (optional)||Any (LF) term||No||No||?||?|
- This refers to the core language, not to any tactic (theorem proving procedure) or code generation sublanguage.
- Subject to semantic constraints, such as universe constraints
- Static_Predicate for restricted terms, Dynamic_Predicate for Assert-like checking of any term in type cast
- Ring solver
- Optional universes, optional universe polymorphism, and optional explicitly specified universes
- Universes, automatically inferred universe constraints (not the same as Agda's universe polymorphism) and optional explicit printing of universe constraints
- Has been superseded by ATS
- Last Sage paper and last code snapshot are both dated 2006
- Sørensen, Morten Heine B.; Pawel Urzyczyn (1998). "Lectures on the Curry-Howard Isomorphism". CiteSeerX 10.1.1.17.7385. Cite journal requires
- Bove, Ana; Peter Dybjer (2008). "Dependent Types at Work" (PDF). Cite journal requires
- "ΠΣ: Dependent Types without the Sugar" (PDF).
- "GNAT Community download page".
- "RM3.2.4 Subtype Predicates".
- SPARK is a provable subset of Ada
- "Agda download page".
- "Agda Ring Solver".
- "Announce: Agda 2.2.8". Archived from the original on 2011-07-18. Retrieved 2010-09-28.
- "Agda 2.6.0 changelog".
- "ATS2 downloads".
- "email from ATS inventor Hongwei Xi".
- "Applied Type System: An Approach to Practical Programming with Theorem-Proving" (PDF).
- "Coq CHANGES in Subversion repository".
- "F* changes on GitHub".
- "F* v0.9.5.0 release notes on GitHub".
- "Guru SVN".
- Aaron Stump (6 April 2009). "Verified Programming in Guru" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 29 December 2009. Retrieved 28 September 2010.
- Adam Petcher (1 April 2008). "Deciding Joinability Modulo Ground Equations in Operational Type Theory" (PDF). Retrieved 14 October 2010.
- "Idris git repository".
- "Idris, a language with dependent types - extended abstract" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-16.
- Edwin Brady. "How does Idris compare to other dependently-typed programming languages?".
- "Matita SVN". Archived from the original on 2006-05-08. Retrieved 2010-09-29.
- "Xanadu home page".
- Martin-Löf, Per (1984). Intuitionistic Type Theory (PDF). Bibliopolis.
- Nordström, Bengt; Petersson, Kent; Smith, Jan M. (1990). Programming in Martin-Löf's Type Theory: An Introduction. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198538141.
- Barendregt, H. (1992). "Lambda calculi with types". In Abramsky, S.; Gabbay, D.; Maibaum, T. (eds.). Handbook of Logic in Computer Science. Oxford Science Publications.
- McBride, Conor; McKinna, James (January 2004). "The view from the left". Journal of Functional Programming. 14 (1): 69–111. doi:10.1017/s0956796803004829.
- Altenkirch, Thorsten; McBride, Conor; McKinna, James (April 2005). "Why dependent types matter" (PDF). Cite journal requires
- Norell, Ulf (September 2007). Towards a practical programming language based on dependent type theory (PDF) (PhD). Göteborg, Sweden: Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology. ISBN 978-91-7291-996-9.
- Oury, Nicolas; Swierstra, Wouter (2008). "The Power of Pi" (PDF). ICFP '08: Proceedings of the 13th ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Functional programming. pp. 39–50. doi:10.1145/1411204.1411213. ISBN 9781595939197.
- Norell, Ulf (2009). "Dependently Typed Programming in Agda" (PDF). In Koopman, P.; Plasmeijer, R.; Swierstra, D. (eds.). Advanced Functional Programming. AFP 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 5832. Springer. pp. 230–266. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04652-0_5. ISBN��978-3-642-04651-3.
- Sitnikovski, Boro (2018). Gentle Introduction to Dependent Types with Idris. Lean Publishing. ISBN 978-1723139413.
- Dependently Typed Programming 2008
- Dependently Typed Programming 2010
- Dependently Typed Programming 2011
- "Dependent type" at the Haskell Wiki
- dependent type theory in nLab
- dependent type in nLab
- dependent product type in nLab
- dependent sum type in nLab
- dependent product in nLab
- dependent sum in nLab