Note: information on this page refers to Ceylon 1.2, not to the current release.


This is the ninth part of the Tour of Ceylon. The previous leg covered intersection types, union types, and enumerated types. In this part we're looking at generic types.

Inheritance and subtyping are a powerful tool for abstracting over types. But this tool has its limitations. It can't help us express generic container types like collections. For this problem we need parameterized types. We've seen plenty of parameterized types already—for example, iterables, sequences, and tuples—but now let's explore a few more details.

Defining generic types

Programming with generic types is one of the most difficult parts of Java. That's still true, to some extent, in Ceylon. But because the Ceylon language and SDK were designed for generics from the ground up, Ceylon is able to alleviate the most painful aspects of Java's bolted-on-later model.

Just like in Java, only types and methods may declare type parameters. Also just like in Java, type parameters are listed before ordinary parameters, enclosed in angle brackets.

shared interface Iterator<out Element> { ... }

shared class Singleton<out Element>(Element element)
        extends Object()
        satisfies [Element+]
        given Element satisfies Object { ... }

shared Value sum<Value>({Value+} values) 
        given Value satisfies Summable<Value> { ... }

shared <Key->Item>[] zip<Key,Item>({Key*} keys, {Item*} items)
        given Key satisfies Object
        given Item satisfies Object { ... }

As you can see, the convention in Ceylon is to use meaningful names for type parameters (in other languages the usual convention is to use single letter names).

A type parameter may have a default argument.

shared interface Iterable<out Element, out Absent=Null> ...

Type arguments

Unlike Java, we always do need to specify type arguments in a type declaration (there are no raw types in Ceylon). The following will not compile:

Iterator it = ...;   //error: missing type argument to parameter Element of Iterable

Instead, we have to provide a type argument like this:

Iterator<String> it = ...;

On the other hand, we don't need to explicitly specify type arguments in most method invocations or class instantiations. We don't usually need to write:

Array<String> strings = Array<String> { "Hello", "World" };
{String|Integer*} things = interleave<String|Integer,Null>(strings, 0..2);

Instead, it's very often possible to infer the type arguments from the ordinary arguments.

value strings = Array { "Hello", "World" }; // type Array<String>
value things = interleave(strings, 0..2); // type {String|Integer*}

The generic type argument inference algorithm is slightly involved, so you should refer to the language specification for a complete definition. But essentially what happens is that Ceylon infers a type argument by combining the types of corresponding arguments using union in the case of a covariant type parameter, or intersection in the case of a contravariant type parameter.

value points = Array { Polar(pi/4, 0.5), Cartesian(-1.0, 2.5) }; // type Array<Polar|Cartesian>
value entries = zipEntries(1..points.size, points); // type {<Integer->Polar|Cartesian>*}

If a type parameter has a default argument, we're allowed to leave out the type argument to that type parameter when we supply a type argument list. Therefore Iterable<String> means Iterable<String,Null>.

Covariance and contravariance

Ceylon eliminates, mostly, one of the bits of Java generics that's hardest to get your head around: wildcard types. Wildcard types were Java's solution to the problem of covariance in a generic type system. Let's meet the idea of covariance, and then see how covariance works in Ceylon.

It all starts with the intuitive expectation that a collection of Geeks is a collection of Persons. That's a reasonable intuition, but, if collections are be mutable, it turns out to be incorrect. Consider the following possible definition of Collection:

interface Collection<Element> {
    shared formal Iterator<Element> iterator();
    shared formal void add(Element x);

And let's suppose that Geek is a subtype of Person. Reasonable.

The intuitive expectation is that the following code should work:

Collection<Geek> geeks = ... ;
Collection<Person> people = geeks;    //compiler error
for (person in people) { ... }

This code is, frankly, perfectly reasonable taken at face value. Yet in both Java and Ceylon, this code results in a compile-time error at the second line, where the Collection<Geek> is assigned to a Collection<Person>. Why? Well, because if we let the assignment through, the following code would also compile:

Collection<Geek> geeks = ... ;
Collection<Person> people = geeks;    //compiler error
people.add( Person("Fonzie") );

We can't let that code by—Fonzie isn't a Geek!

Using big words, we say that Collection is invariant in Element. Or, when we're not trying to impress people with opaque terminology, we say that Collection both produces—via the iterator() method—and consumes— via the add() method—the type Element.

Here's where Java goes off and dives down a rabbit hole, introducing wildcards to wrangle a covariant or contravariant type out of an invariant type, but also succeeding in thoroughly confusing everybody. We're not going to follow Java down the hole.

Instead, we're going to refactor Collection into a pure producer interface and a pure consumer interface:

interface Producer<out Output> {
    shared formal Iterator<Output> iterator();
interface Consumer<in Input> {
    shared formal void add(Input x);

Notice that we've annotated the type parameters of these interfaces.

  • The out annotation specifies that Producer is covariant in Output; that it produces instances of Output, but never consumes instances of Output.
  • The in annotation specifies that Consumer is contravariant in Input; that it consumes instances of Input, but never produces instances of Input.

The Ceylon compiler validates the schema of the type declaration to ensure that the variance annotations are satisfied. If you try to declare an add() method on Producer, a compilation error results. If you try to declare an iterate() method on Consumer, you get a similar compilation error.

Now, let's see what that buys us:

  • Since Producer is covariant in its type parameter Output, and since Geek is a subtype of Person, Ceylon lets you assign Producer<Geek> to Producer<Person>.
  • Furthermore, since Consumer is contravariant in its type parameter Input, and since Geek is a subtype of Person, Ceylon lets you assign Consumer<Person> to Consumer<Geek>.

We can define our Collection interface as a mixin of Producer with Consumer.

interface Collection<Element>
        satisfies Producer<Element> & Consumer<Element> {}

Notice that Collection remains invariant in Element. If we tried to add a variance annotation to Element in Collection, a compile time error would result, because the annotation would contradict the variance annotation of either Producer or Consumer.

Now, the following code finally compiles:

Collection<Geek> geeks = ... ;
Producer<Person> people = geeks;
for (person in people) { ... }

Which matches our original intuition.

The following code also compiles:

Collection<Person> people = ... ;
Consumer<Geek> geekConsumer = people;
geekConsumer.add( Geek("James") );

Which is also intuitively correct—James is most certainly a Person!

There's two additional things that follow from the definition of covariance and contravariance:

  • Producer<Anything> is a supertype of Producer<T> for any type T, and
  • Consumer<Nothing> is a supertype of Consumer<T> for any type T.

These invariants can be very helpful if you need to abstract over all Producers or all Consumers. (Note, however, that if Producer declared upper bound type constraints on Output, then Producer<Anything> would not be a legal type.)

You're unlikely to spend much time writing your own collection classes, since the Ceylon SDK has a powerful collections framework built in. But you'll still appreciate Ceylon's approach to covariance as a user of the built-in collection types.


Sadly, declaration site variance doesn't help us when we interoperate with native Java code, where all generic types are invariant by default, and wildcards are used to recover covariance or contravariance in method signatures.

Therefore, Ceylon also supports Java-style wildcards, albeit with a cleaner syntax.

Wildcard types

We don't recommend the use of wildcard types in pure Ceylon code, but you still need to be aware of their existence if you ever plan to call native Java classes from Ceylon.

This Java method signature:

void java(Map<? super String, ? extends Widget> map) { ... }

Would be written like this in Ceylon:

void java(Map<in String, out Widget> map) { ... }

Here, we see a wildcarded type:

Map<in String, out Widget>

The wildcards in String and out Widget make the following code well-typed:

//assigns a Map<Object,MoveableWidget> to Map<in String, out Widget>

Since Object is a supertype of String and MoveableWidget is a subtype of Widget, Map<Object,MoveableWidget> is assignable to the wildcard type Map<in String, out Widget>.

If you didn't follow this section, don't worry. You might not ever even need to use a wildcard type in Ceylon. We have bigger fish to fry.

Covariance and contravariance with unions and intersections

There's a couple of interesting relationships that arise when we introduce union and intersection types into the picture.

First, consider a covariant type like List<Element>. Then for any types X and Y:

  • List<X>|List<Y> is a subtype of List<X|Y> , and
  • List<X>&List<Y> is a supertype of List<X&Y>.

Next, consider a contravariant type like Consumer<Element>. Then for any types X and Y:

  • Consumer<X>|Consumer<Y> is a subtype of Consumer<X&Y> , and
  • Consumer<X>&Consumer<Y> is a supertype of Consumer<X|Y>.

It's worth coming back to this section later, and trying to develop some intuition about exactly why these relationships are correct and what they mean. But don't waste time on that now. We've got bigger fish to fry!

Generics and inheritance

Consider the following classes:

class LinkedList() 
        satisfies List<Object> { ... }

class LinkedStringList() 
        extends LinkedList() 
        satisfies List<String> { ... }

This kind of inheritance is illegal in Java. A class can't inherit the same type more than once, with different type arguments. We say that Java supports only single instantiation inheritance.

Ceylon is less restrictive here. The above code is perfectly legal if (and only if) the interface List<Element> is covariant in its type parameter Element, that is, if it's declared like this:

interface List<out Element> { ... }

We say that Ceylon features principal instantiation inheritance. Even the following code is legal:

interface ListOfSomething 
        satisfies List<Something> {}

interface ListOfSomethingElse 
        satisfies List<SomethingElse> {}

class MyList() satisfies 
        ListOfSomething & ListOfSomethingElse { ... }

Then the following is legal and well-typed:

List<Something&SomethingElse> list = MyList();

Please pause here, and take the time to notice how ridiculously awesome this is. We never actually explicitly mentioned that MyList() was a List<Something&SomethingElse>. The compiler just figured it out for us.

Note that when you inherit the same type more than once, you might need to refine some of its members, in order to satisfy all inherited signatures. Don't worry, the compiler will notice and force you to do it.

Generic type constraints

Very commonly, when we write a parameterized type, we want to be able to invoke methods or evaluate attributes upon instances of the type parameter. For example, if we were writing a parameterized type Set<Element>, we would need to be able to compare instances of Element using == to see if a certain instance of Element is contained in the Set. Since == is defined for expressions of type Object, we need some way to assert that Element is a subtype of Object. This is an example of a type constraint—in fact, it's an example of the most common kind of type constraint, an upper bound.

Upper bound type constraints

An upper bound type constraint restricts the arguments of a type parameter to subtypes of a certain type.

shared class Set<out Element>(Element* elements)
        given Element satisfies Object {

    shared Boolean contains(Object obj) {
        if (is Element obj) {
            return obj in bucket(obj.hash);
        else {
            return false;


Now, a type argument to Element must be a subtype of Object.

Set<String> set1 = Set("C", "Java", "Ceylon"); //ok
Set<String?> set2 = Set("C", "Java", "Ceylon", null); //compile error

Enumerated bound type constraints

A second kind of type constraint is an enumerated bound, which constrains the type argument to be one of an enumerated list of types. It lets us write an exhaustive switch on the type parameter:

Float sqr<Value>(Value x, Value y)
        given Value of Float | Integer {
    switch (x)
    case (is Float) {
        assert (is Float y);
        return sqrt(x^2+y^2);
    case (is Integer) {
        assert (is Integer y);
        return sqrt((x^2+y^2).float);

This is one of the workarounds we mentioned earlier for Ceylon's lack of overloading.


An enumerated bound like given Value of Float|Integer doesn't make Value a subtype of the union type Float|Integer. However, the union type does cover the type parameter Value. So you can assign Value to Float|Integer with the help of the of operator:

void fun<Value>(Value val) 
        given Value of Float|Integer {
    Float|Integer floatOrInteger 
            = val of Float|Integer;

This is the same thing we've already seen for other enumerated types.

Multiple type constraints

When we declare multiple constraints on a type parameter, we must declare them as part of the same given declaration:

given Value of Float | Integer satisfies Ordinal<Value> & Comparable<Value>

In Ceylon, a generic type parameter is considered a perfectly normal type, so a type constraint declaration looks a lot like an interface declaration, with the same syntax for the of and satisfies clauses. This is another way in which Ceylon is more regular than some other C-like languages.

Fully reified generic types

The root cause of very many problems when working with generic types in Java is type erasure. Generic type parameters and arguments are discarded by the compiler, and simply aren't available at runtime. So the following, perfectly sensible, code fragments just wouldn't compile in Java:

if (is List<Person> list) { ... }
if (is Element obj) { ... }

(Where Element is a generic type parameter.)

Ceylon's type system has reified generic type arguments. Like Java, the Ceylon compiler performs erasure, discarding type parameters from the schema of the generic type. On the JavaScript platform, types are discarded when producing JavaScript source. But unlike Java, type arguments are reified (available at runtime). Types are even reified when executing on a JavaScript virtual machine!

So the code fragments above compile and function as expected on both platforms. Via the metamodel, you're even able to use reflection to discover the type arguments of an instance of a generic type at runtime.

Now of course, generic type arguments aren't checked for typesafety by the underlying virtual machine at runtime, but that's just not really strictly necessary since the compiler has already checked and proved the soundness of the code. They are, however, checked at runtime whenever you use a type assertion to narrow the type of a value.

There's more...

Now we're ready to look at a really important feature of the language: modularity.