Allow overlap with a final impl if identical (#2868)

Allow an `impl` to overlap with a `final impl` if they agree on the overlap. Agreement is defined as all values comparing equal, and functions never comparing equal. Implements the decision in question-for-leads issue #1077.
2026-10-05 22:02:55 +01:00 · 2023-06-02 16:05:46 -07:00
parent 684168fbef
commit f0ead22f0c
2 changed files with 189 additions and 9 deletions
@@ -4264,20 +4264,20 @@ generic function call, such as using an operator:
 // Interface defining the behavior of the prefix-* operator
 interface Deref {
  let Result:! type;
-  fn DoDeref[self: Self]() -> Result;
+  fn Op[self: Self]() -> Result;
 }

 // Types implementing `Deref`
 class Ptr(T:! type) {
  ...
  external impl as Deref where .Result = T {
-    fn DoDeref[self: Self]() -> Result { ... }
+    fn Op[self: Self]() -> Result { ... }
  }
 }
 class Optional(T:! type) {
  ...
  external impl as Deref where .Result = T {
-    fn DoDeref[self: Self]() -> Result { ... }
+    fn Op[self: Self]() -> Result { ... }
  }
 }

@@ -4288,7 +4288,7 @@ fn F[T:! type](x: T) {

 The concern is the possibility of specializing `Optional(T) as Deref` or
 `Ptr(T) as Deref` for a more specific `T` means that the compiler can't assume
-anything about the return type of `Deref.DoDeref` calls. This means `F` would in
+anything about the return type of `Deref.Op` calls. This means `F` would in
 practice have to add a constraint, which is both verbose and exposes what should
 be implementation details:

@@ -4307,14 +4307,14 @@ class Ptr(T:! type) {
  ...
  // Note: added `final`
  final external impl as Deref where .Result = T {
-    fn DoDeref[self: Self]() -> Result { ... }
+    fn Op[self: Self]() -> Result { ... }
  }
 }
 class Optional(T:! type) {
  ...
  // Note: added `final`
  final external impl as Deref where .Result = T {
-    fn DoDeref[self: Self]() -> Result { ... }
+    fn Op[self: Self]() -> Result { ... }
  }
 }

@@ -4323,9 +4323,32 @@ class Optional(T:! type) {
 ```

 This prevents any higher-priority impl that overlaps a final impl from being
-defined. Further, if the Carbon compiler sees a matching final impl, it can
-assume it won't be specialized so it can use the assignments of the associated
-types in that impl definition.
+defined unless it agrees with the `final` impl on the overlap. Overlap is
+computed between two non-`template` `impl` declaration by
+[unifying](<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_(computer_science)>) the
+corresponding parts. For example, the intersection of these two declarations
+
+```carbon
+final impl forall [T:! type]
+    T as CommonTypeWith(T)
+    where .Result = T {}
+
+impl forall [V:! type, U:! CommonTypeWith(V)]
+    Vec(U) as CommonTypeWith(Vec(V))
+    where .Result = Vec(U.Result) {}
+```
+
+is found by unifying `T` with `Vec(U)` and `CommonTypeWith(T)` with
+`CommonTypeWith(Vec(V))`. In this case, the intersection is when `T == Vec(U)`
+and `U == V`. For templated `impl` declarations, overlap and agreement is
+delayed until the template is instantiated with concrete types.
+
+Since we do not require the compiler to compare the definitions of functions,
+agreement is only possible for interfaces without any function members.
+
+If the Carbon compiler sees a matching `final` impl, it can assume it won't be
+specialized so it can use the assignments of the associated types in that impl
+definition.

 ```
 fn F[T:! type](x: T) {
@@ -4336,6 +4359,16 @@ fn F[T:! type](x: T) {
 }
 ```

+**Alternatives considered:**
+
+-   [Allow interfaces with member functions to compare equal](/proposals/p2868.md#allow-interfaces-with-member-functions-to-compare-equal)
+-   Mark associated constants as `final` instead of an `impl` declaration, in
+    proposals
+    [#983](/proposals/p0983.md#final-associated-constants-instead-of-final-impls)
+    and
+    [#2868](/proposals/p2868.md#mark-associated-constants-as-final-instead-of-an-impl-declaration)
+-   [Prioritize a `final impl` over a more specific `impl` on the overlap](/proposals/p2868.md#prioritize-a-final-impl-over-a-more-specific-impl-on-the-overlap)
+
 #### Libraries that can contain a `final` impl

 To prevent the possibility of two unrelated libraries defining conflicting impl
@@ -0,0 +1,147 @@
+# Allow overlap with a `final impl` if identical
+
+<!--
+Part of the Carbon Language project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM
+Exceptions. See /LICENSE for license information.
+SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception
+-->
+
+[Pull request](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/2868)
+
+<!-- toc -->
+
+## Table of contents
+
+-   [Abstract](#abstract)
+-   [Problem](#problem)
+-   [Background](#background)
+-   [Proposal](#proposal)
+-   [Rationale](#rationale)
+-   [Alternatives considered](#alternatives-considered)
+    -   [Allow interfaces with member functions to compare equal](#allow-interfaces-with-member-functions-to-compare-equal)
+    -   [Mark associated constants as `final` instead of an `impl` declaration](#mark-associated-constants-as-final-instead-of-an-impl-declaration)
+    -   [Allow type inequality constraints](#allow-type-inequality-constraints)
+    -   [Prioritize a `final impl` over a more specific `impl` on the overlap](#prioritize-a-final-impl-over-a-more-specific-impl-on-the-overlap)
+
+<!-- tocstop -->
+
+## Abstract
+
+Allow an `impl` to overlap with a `final impl` if they agree on the overlap.
+Agreement is defined as all values comparing equal, and functions never
+comparing equal. Implements the decision in question-for-leads
+[issue #1077: find a way to permit impls of CommonTypeWith where the LHS and RHS type overlap](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/issues/1077).
+
+## Problem
+
+The
+[current design](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/blob/trunk/docs/design/expressions/if.md#same-type)
+includes a `final impl` declaration for the `CommonTypeWith(T)` interface:
+
+```carbon
+final impl forall [T:! type]
+    T as CommonTypeWith(T)
+    where .Result = T {}
+```
+
+[Marking an `impl` declaration `final`](/docs/design/generics/details.md#final-impl-declarations),
+prevents any overlapping implementation that would be considered more specific
+by the [overlap rule](/docs/design/generics/details.md#overlap-rule). This
+includes cases where the overlap is harmless, such as:
+
+```carbon
+impl forall [U:! type, T:! CommonTypeWith(U)]
+    Vec(T) as CommonTypeWith(Vec(U))
+    where .Result = Vec(T.Result) {}
+```
+
+This is an implementation we would like to define, along with a number of
+similar cases. And this `impl` declaration doesn't actually conflict with the
+previous `final impl` because the value of `Result`, the only member of the
+`CommonTypeWith` interface, agrees where the two implementations overlap.
+
+## Background
+
+The `CommonTypeWith(T)` interface and `final impl` above were introduced in
+[proposal #911: Conditional expressions](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/911).
+
+[Proposal #983: Generics details 7: final impls](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/983)
+introduced and defined the rules for `final impl` declarations.
+
+The overlap rule was introduced in
+[proposal #920](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/920).
+
+There were a number of different resolutions for this problem considered in
+question-for-leads
+[issue #1077: find a way to permit impls of CommonTypeWith where the LHS and RHS type overlap](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/issues/1077).
+This proposal codifies the resolution of that issue.
+
+## Proposal
+
+We allow an `impl` declaration to overlap with a `final impl` declaration if it
+agrees on the overlap. Since we do not require the compiler to compare the
+definitions of functions, agreement is only possible for interfaces without any
+function members. The details about how the intersection is computed and how
+templated `impl` declarations are handled have been added to
+[the section on `final` impl declarations in the generics design doc](/docs/design/generics/details.md#final-impl-declarations).
+
+## Rationale
+
+This proposal is intentionally keeping the language small by making a simple
+rule that addresses the only identified use case and nothing more. This benefits
+
+-   [Language tools and ecosystem](/docs/project/goals.md#language-tools-and-ecosystem)
+-   [Code that is easy to read, understand, and write](/docs/project/goals.md#code-that-is-easy-to-read-understand-and-write)
+
+by relying on Carbon's commitment to
+[software and language evolution](/docs/project/goals.md#software-and-language-evolution)
+to update our approach as needed, rather then trying to proactively address
+concerns ahead of time.
+
+## Alternatives considered
+
+### Allow interfaces with member functions to compare equal
+
+There are some specific cases where the compiler can verify that two functions
+are the same without having to compare their definitions. For example, two
+implementations that don't implement a function and instead inherit the default
+from the interface could be considered equal. This creates an evolution hazard,
+though, that copying the definition from the interface into the implementation
+means that the interface could now compare not equal without any change in
+behavior. For now, the simple rule that we don't compare functions at all is
+sufficient for our identified [use case](#problem). This is something we would
+reconsider given new use cases.
+
+### Mark associated constants as `final` instead of an `impl` declaration
+
+The biggest benefit from knowing that an `impl` declaration won't be specialized
+is being able to use the values of the associated constants, particularly
+associated types. Thus, it is natural to focus on associated constants, which
+don't have the same concerns as functions with comparing for equality.
+
+However, for the [motivating use case](#problem), we would still need this
+proposal, just restricted to the associated constants that are declared `final`.
+So we may still add this feature, if it is warranted by demand, but we did not
+yet have that justification. This is essentially the same position as when this
+feature was considered in
+[proposal #983](/proposals/p0983.md#final-associated-constants-instead-of-final-impls).
+
+### Allow type inequality constraints
+
+Another approach would be to provide type inequality constraints so the more
+specialized implementation could exclude the overlapping cases. This has some
+downsides:
+
+-   The more specialized implementation has to be aware of the `final` impl to
+    specifically exclude it. This would add extra steps to the development
+    process since this discovery is likely to occur as the result of a failed
+    compile.
+-   The more specialized implementation becomes more verbose, with extra
+    conditions that don't add any value.
+-   The current approach for establishing whether two types are equal doesn't in
+    general provide a way to show two types are not equal in generic code.
+
+### Prioritize a `final impl` over a more specific `impl` on the overlap
+
+This was a possible fix, but was seen as a bigger change that we didn't yet have
+justification for.