Is there a way to redefine a type hint to a descendant class when extending an abstract class?

I will be using the following example to illustrate my question:

class Attribute {}

class SimpleAttribute extends Attribute {}



abstract class AbstractFactory {
    abstract public function update(Attribute $attr, $data);
}

class SimpleFactory extends AbstractFactory {
   public function update(SimpleAttribute $attr, $data);

}

If you try to run this, PHP will throw a fatal error, saying that the Declaration of SimpleFactory::update() must be compatible with that of AbstractFactory::update()

I understand exactly what this means: That SimpleFactory::update()s method signature must exactly match that of its parent abstract class.

However, my question: Is there any way to allow the concrete method (in this case, SimpleFactory::update()) to redefine the type hint to a valid descendant of the original hint?

An example would be the instanceof operator, which would return true in the following case:

SimpleAttribute instanceof Attribute // => true

I do realize that as a work around, I could make the type hint the same in the concrete method, and do an instanceof check in the method body itself, but is there a way to simply enforce this at the signature level?

Answer

I wouldn’t expect so, as it can break type hinting contracts. Suppose a function foo took an AbstractFactory and was passed a SimpleFactory.

function foo(AbstractFactory $maker) {
    $attr = new Attribute();
    $maker->update($attr, 42);
}
...
$packager=new SimpleFactory();
foo($packager);

foo calls update and passes an Attribute to the factory, which it should take because the AbstractFactory::update method signature promises it can take an Attribute. Bam! The SimpleFactory has an object of type it can’t handle properly.

class Attribute {}
class SimpleAttribute extends Attribute {
    public function spin() {...}
}
class SimpleFactory extends AbstractFactory {
    public function update(SimpleAttribute $attr, $data) {
        $attr->spin(); // This will fail when called from foo()
    }
}

In contract terminology, descendent classes must honor the contracts of their ancestors, which means function parameters can get more basal/less specified/offer a weaker contract and return values can be more derived/more specified/offer a stronger contract. The principle is described for Eiffel (arguably the most popular design-by-contract language) in “An Eiffel Tutorial: Inheritance and Contracts“. Weakening and strengthening of types are examples of contravariance and covariance, respectively.

In more theoretical terms, this is an example of LSP violation. No, not that LSP; the Liskov Substitution Principle, which states that objects of a subtype can be substituted for objects of a supertype. SimpleFactory is a subtype of AbstractFactory, and foo takes an AbstractFactory. Thus, according to LSP, foo should take a SimpleFactory. Doing so causes a “Call to undefined method” fatal error, which means LSP has been violated.