[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0104: Protocol-oriented integers
Dave Abrahams
dabrahams at apple.com
Mon Jun 27 18:21:11 CDT 2016
on Fri Jun 24 2016, plx <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> +1 but with a few reservations.
>
> # Arithmetic
>
> What *are* the expected semantics of the operators? It seems like you
> can’t assume much about a generic `Arithmetic` type, e.g. in a generic
> context I can’t reliably assume even things like these:
>
> - `(x / y) * y == x` (or even “is close to" x)
> - `(x + x + … + x) / n == x` (for `x` added together `n` times)
> - `((x + y) + z) == (x + (y + z))` (etc.)
> - `(x + y) - y == x`(? I think...)
>
> …and so on; am I missing something?
>
> If `Arithmetic` is as lacking in semantics as it seems, then it feels
> like one of those “bag of syntax” protocols that keep getting
> mentioned as against the stdlib philosophy.
Well, this is a special case for two reasons:
1. Floating point is weird. Technically, it doesn't obey any
mathematical laws understandable by people whose name is not Steve
Canon. However, approximately nobody programs as though that's the
case, because it would be impossible. We program as though floating
point types are idealized real numbers and then we deal with the fact
that they're only a pretty good approximation as an afterthought at
best. Within the limits of that approximation, floating point fits
into a set of laws governing Arithmetic... that we admittedly have
not written down, but should.
2. The proper semantic breakdown of protocols in this area is too
complex for most people to handle (you can find some figures in
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/pub/techreports/TR638.pdf), and we're not
sure yet which subset of these belongs in the standard library.
--
Dave
More information about the swift-evolution
mailing list