[swift-evolution] SetAlgebra naming update
xiaodi.wu at gmail.com
Mon Mar 28 22:28:55 CDT 2016
I do believe, if we're going to try to go down the route of correctness,
that A \ B is generally spoken of as the complement of B in A, which I
guess could be written in Swift as `a.complement(of: b)`. However, that
doesn't read too well and I don't think it clarifies anything.
Alternatively, and this would be a bigger change but would be unambiguous
and correct, we could have it as `b.complement(in: a)`, which has the added
but practically useless virtue that a hypothetical universal complement
could be named in a consistent way as `b.complement()`.
Difference does seem to be the consensus word among most programming
languages for this method, and in Python it really is just
`a.difference(b)`. I don't think it's ever referred to as "difference
from", and I would not know if `a.formDifference(from: b)` denotes A \ B or
B \ A without looking it up.
So, I guess, I'd prefer subtract over "difference from", as neither is
really mathematically correct and at least the former is unambiguous. If
the core team is willing to entertain b.complement(in: a), I'd be +1 on
that. At the end of the day, this particular method will have to look
different from the others no matter what because it is unique in not being
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:59 PM Dave via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> On Mar 28, 2016, at 7:34 PM, Erica Sadun <erica at ericasadun.com> wrote:
> On Mar 28, 2016, at 6:19 PM, Dave via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2016, at 4:45 PM, Dave Abrahams <dabrahams at apple.com> wrote:
> on Fri Mar 25 2016, davesweeris-AT-mac.com
> <http://davesweeris-at-mac.com/> wrote:
> Can we rename `subtract` to `complement`, since that’s the correct
> term? At least, I’m assuming that’s what `subtract` means… if not, I’m
> It's not just “complement,” because that means inverting set membership
> of everything in a finite domain. It would have to be “relative
> complement.” But “relative complement” lacks the directional
> implication that plagues terms like “difference,” but not “subtracting.”
> Fair points… I accidentally left off the argument label. May I amend my
> suggestion to "rename `subtract(:)` to `complement(relativeTo:)`”? It just
> seems to me that if we’re going to claim we’re implementing something, we
> should adopt as much of its “standard" syntax and terminology as possible.
> It makes Swift easier to use for those coming from other disciplines, IMHO.
> If you took 100 random developers off the street, and showed them code
> that said:
> About 99.5% of them would understand the second better than the first on
> first read.
> The other 0.5 of a developer would be living somewhere near Boulder and
> his own hemi-pharmaceuticals.
> With my amended suggestion, that would read "set1.formComplement(relativeTo:
> set2)”. Either way, though, if you’re claiming that
> “complement(relativeTo:)” or “complementRelativeTo(:)” shouldn’t be used
> because it’s too unrecognizable compared to the roughly-analogous term
> “subtract", then surely “union”, intersection”, and especially
> “symmetricDifference” all fail that test as well when compared to some very
> well-known terms:
> set1.or(set2) //union
> set1.and(set2) //intersection
> set1.xor(set2) //symmetric difference
> (Plus, they work & play well with non-unicode operators.)
> My issue isn’t so much that the proposal doesn’t implement the “correct”
> mathematical notation, it’s that it uses a very formal-sounding name ("Set
> Algebra”), and very nearly implements the basic operations of Set Theory
> (which sounds very similar to “Set Algebra”), but then falls short by
> renaming just one operation. Although, come to think of it, the proposal is
> missing `cartesianProduct` as well… Oh well, at least it’s not in there
> under a different name. :-)
> The problem with subtraction is that there isn't really a good
> noun/formNoun pair
> for it.
> In all my attempts at trying to brainstorm up a better word that would (1)
> the characteristics of mutating/non-mutating pairing while (2) being easy
> to read
> and understand, I could not come up with better than Dave A's
> I may not like it aesthetically but when it comes to offering something
> I've got nothing.
> I think these two statements have the same root cause: Pretty much
> everyone has heard of subtraction, but the closest most people come to
> formally thinking about sets is trying to decide who to pick for their
> fantasy football team. The concept of operating on sets simply isn’t
> widespread enough for english to have a colloquial word which conveys the
> required meaning. “Subtract” does come close, but the AFAIK two concepts
> are only analogous in that subtraction is often first taught from the POV
> of “imagine a set of x elements, take away y of them, and count how many
> are left over” (see the first graphic in
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtraction, if that doesn’t ring a bell).
> The analogy doesn’t really work if your sets are, well, sets, as opposed to
> visual representations of numbers. The only other “widely-recognized” term
> that I can think of is “minus” (which I’d prefer over “subtract” because it
> seems less precisely defined to me). Neither one is a noun, though, so they
> both break the noun/formNoun pattern.
> Speaking of nouns...
> That means either breaking the pair into two words that aren't well matched
> or using a noun that isn't that amazing, such as difference.
> You can gain the requisite “directional implication” Dave Abrahams was
> talking about by adding some labels:
> set1.difference(from: set2)
> set1.formDifference(from: set2)
> That said, I'd really like to see a Swift Doc markup that allows you to
> pairs of mutating/nonmutating functions, not from a compiler point of
> view but in doc markup.
> /// - nonmutatingVersion:
> /// - mutatingVersion:
> What group handles expansion of the markup keywords and how can I file a
> feature request asking for this to be added?
> -- E
> +1 :-)
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution