Covariance and Contravariance: Connict without a Cause

In type-theoretic research on object-oriented programming, the issue of \covariance versus con-travariance" is a topic of continuing debate. In this short note we argue that covariance and con-travariance appropriately characterize two distinct and independent mechanisms. The so-called contravariancerule correctly captures the subtyping relation (that relation which establishes which sets of functions can replace another given set in every context). A covariant relation, instead, characterizes the specialization of code (i.e., the deenition of new code which replaces old definitions in some particular cases). Therefore, covariance and contravariance are not opposing views, but distinct concepts that each have their place in object-oriented systems. Both can (and should) be integrated in a type-safe manner in object-oriented languages. We also show that the independence of the two mechanisms is not characteristic of a particular model but is valid in general, since covariant specialization is present in record-based models, although it is hidden by a deeciency of all existing calculi that realize this model. As an aside, we show that the &-calculus can be taken as the basic calculus for both an overloading-based and a record-based model. Using this approach, one not only obtains a more uniform vision of object-oriented type theories, but in the case of the record-based approach, one also gains multiple dispatching, a feature that existing record-based models do not capture.