The question is "what is the difference between covariance and contravariance?"
Covariance and contravariance are properties of a mapping function that associates one member of a set with another. More specifically, a mapping can be covariant or contravariant with respect to a relation on that set.
Consider the following two subsets of the set of all C# types. First:
{ Animal,
Tiger,
Fruit,
Banana }.
And second, this clearly related set:
{ IEnumerable<Animal>,
IEnumerable<Tiger>,
IEnumerable<Fruit>,
IEnumerable<Banana> }
There is a mapping operation from the first set to the second set. That is, for each T in the first set, the corresponding type in the second set is IEnumerable<T>
. Or, in short form, the mapping is T → IE<T>
. Notice that this is a "thin arrow".
With me so far?
Now let's consider a relation. There is an assignment compatibility relationship between pairs of types in the first set. A value of type Tiger
can be assigned to a variable of type Animal
, so these types are said to be "assignment compatible". Let's write "a value of type X
can be assigned to a variable of type Y
" in a shorter form: X ? Y
. Notice that this is a "fat arrow".
So in our first subset, here are all the assignment compatibility relationships:
Tiger ? Tiger
Tiger ? Animal
Animal ? Animal
Banana ? Banana
Banana ? Fruit
Fruit ? Fruit
In C# 4, which supports covariant assignment compatibility of certain interfaces, there is an assignment compatibility relationship between pairs of types in the second set:
IE<Tiger> ? IE<Tiger>
IE<Tiger> ? IE<Animal>
IE<Animal> ? IE<Animal>
IE<Banana> ? IE<Banana>
IE<Banana> ? IE<Fruit>
IE<Fruit> ? IE<Fruit>
Notice that the mapping T → IE<T>
preserves the existence and direction of assignment compatibility. That is, if X ? Y
, then it is also true that IE<X> ? IE<Y>
.
If we have two things on either side of a fat arrow, then we can replace both sides with something on the right hand side of a corresponding thin arrow.
A mapping which has this property with respect to a particular relation is called a "covariant mapping". This should make sense: a sequence of Tigers can be used where a sequence of Animals is needed, but the opposite is not true. A sequence of animals cannot necessarily be used where a sequence of Tigers is needed.
That's covariance. Now consider this subset of the set of all types:
{ IComparable<Tiger>,
IComparable<Animal>,
IComparable<Fruit>,
IComparable<Banana> }
now we have the mapping from the first set to the third set T → IC<T>
.
In C# 4:
IC<Tiger> ? IC<Tiger>
IC<Animal> ? IC<Tiger> Backwards!
IC<Animal> ? IC<Animal>
IC<Banana> ? IC<Banana>
IC<Fruit> ? IC<Banana> Backwards!
IC<Fruit> ? IC<Fruit>
That is, the mapping T → IC<T>
has preserved the existence but reversed the direction of assignment compatibility. That is, if X ? Y
, then IC<X> ? IC<Y>
.
A mapping which preserves but reverses a relation is called a contravariant mapping.
Again, this should be clearly correct. A device which can compare two Animals can also compare two Tigers, but a device which can compare two Tigers cannot necessarily compare any two Animals.
So that's the difference between covariance and contravariance in C# 4. Covariance preserves the direction of assignability. Contravariance reverses it.