Typespecs and behaviours

Types and specs

Elixir is a dynamically typed language, so all types in Elixir are inferred by the runtime. Nonetheless, Elixir comes with typespecs, which are a notation used for:

  1. declaring typed function signatures (specifications);
  2. declaring custom data types.

Function specifications

By default, Elixir provides some basic types, such as integer or pid, as well as more complex types: for example, the round/1 function, which rounds a float to its nearest integer, takes a number as an argument (an integer or a float) and returns an integer. As you can see in its documentation, round/1’s typed signature is written as:

round(number) :: integer

:: means that the function on the left side returns a value whose type is what’s on the right side. Function specs are written with the @spec directive, placed right before the function definition. The round/1 function could be written as:

@spec round(number) :: integer
def round(number), do: # implementation...

Elixir supports compound types as well. For example, a list of integers has type [integer]. You can see all the built-in types provided by Elixir in the typespecs docs.

Defining custom types

While Elixir provides a lot of useful built-in types, it’s convenient to define custom types when appropriate. This can be done when defining modules through the @type directive.

Say we have a LousyCalculator module, which performs the usual arithmetic operations (sum, product, and so on) but, instead of returning numbers, it returns tuples with the result of an operation as the first element and a random remark as the second element.

defmodule LousyCalculator do
  @spec add(number, number) :: {number, String.t}
  def add(x, y), do: {x + y, "You need a calculator to do that?!"}

  @spec multiply(number, number) :: {number, String.t}
  def multiply(x, y), do: {x * y, "Jeez, come on!"}

As you can see in the example, tuples are a compound type and each tuple is identified by the types inside it. To understand why String.t is not written as string, have another look at the typespecs docs.

Defining function specs this way works, but it quickly becomes annoying since we’re repeating the type {number, String.t} over and over. We can use the @type directive in order to declare our own custom type.

defmodule LousyCalculator do
  @typedoc """
  Just a number followed by a string.
  @type number_with_remark :: {number, String.t}

  @spec add(number, number) :: number_with_remark
  def add(x, y), do: {x + y, "You need a calculator to do that?"}

  @spec multiply(number, number) :: number_with_remark
  def multiply(x, y), do: {x * y, "It is like addition on steroids."}

The @typedoc directive, similarly to the @doc and @moduledoc directives, is used to document custom types.

Custom types defined through @type are exported and available outside the module they’re defined in:

defmodule QuietCalculator do
  @spec add(number, number) :: number
  def add(x, y), do: make_quiet(LousyCalculator.add(x, y))

  @spec make_quiet(LousyCalculator.number_with_remark) :: number
  defp make_quiet({num, _remark}), do: num

If you want to keep a custom type private, you can use the @typep directive instead of @type.

Static code analysis

Typespecs are not only useful to developers as additional documentation. The Erlang tool Dialyzer, for example, uses typespecs in order to perform static analysis of code. That’s why, in the QuietCalculator example, we wrote a spec for the make_quiet/1 function even though it was defined as a private function.


Many modules share the same public API. Take a look at Plug, which, as its description states, is a specification for composable modules in web applications. Each plug is a module which has to implement at least two public functions: init/1 and call/2.

Behaviours provide a way to:

  • define a set of functions that have to be implemented by a module;
  • ensure that a module implements all the functions in that set.

If you have to, you can think of behaviours like interfaces in object oriented languages like Java: a set of function signatures that a module has to implement.

Defining behaviours

Say we want to implement a bunch of parsers, each parsing structured data: for example, a JSON parser and a MessagePack parser. Each of these two parsers will behave the same way: both will provide a parse/1 function and an extensions/0 function. The parse/1 function will return an Elixir representation of the structured data, while the extensions/0 function will return a list of file extensions that can be used for each type of data (e.g., .json for JSON files).

We can create a Parser behaviour:

defmodule Parser do
  @callback parse(String.t) :: {:ok, term} | {:error, String.t}
  @callback extensions() :: [String.t]

Modules adopting the Parser behaviour will have to implement all the functions defined with the @callback directive. As you can see, @callback expects a function name but also a function specification like the ones used with the @spec directive we saw above. Also note that the term type is used to represent the parsed value. In Elixir, the term type is a shortcut to represent any type.

Adopting behaviours

Adopting a behaviour is straightforward:

defmodule JSONParser do
  @behaviour Parser

  @impl Parser
  def parse(str), do: {:ok, "some json " <> str} # ... parse JSON
  @impl Parser
  def extensions, do: ["json"]
defmodule YAMLParser do
  @behaviour Parser

  @impl Parser
  def parse(str), do: {:ok, "some yaml " <> str} # ... parse YAML
  @impl Parser
  def extensions, do: ["yml"]

If a module adopting a given behaviour doesn’t implement one of the callbacks required by that behaviour, a compile-time warning will be generated.

Furthermore, with @impl you can also make sure that you are implementing the correct callbacks from the given behaviour in an explicit manner. For example, the following parser implements both parse and extensions, however thanks to a typo, BADParser is implementing parse/0 instead of parse/1.

defmodule BADParser do
  @behaviour Parser

  @impl Parser
  def parse, do: {:ok, "something bad"}
  @impl Parser
  def extensions, do: ["bad"]

This code generates a warning letting you know that you are mistakenly implementing parse/0 instead of parse/1. You can read more about @impl in the module documentation.

Dynamic dispatch

Behaviours are frequently used with dynamic dispatching. For example, we could add a parse! function to the Parser module that dispatches to the given implementation and returns the :ok result or raises in cases of :error:

defmodule Parser do
  @callback parse(String.t) :: {:ok, term} | {:error, String.t}
  @callback extensions() :: [String.t]

  def parse!(implementation, contents) do
    case implementation.parse(contents) do
      {:ok, data} -> data
      {:error, error} -> raise ArgumentError, "parsing error: #{error}"

Note you don’t need to define a behaviour in order to dynamically dispatch on a module, but those features often go hand in hand.

Is something wrong? Edit this page on GitHub.