[swift-evolution] [Draft][Proposal] Formalized Ordering

[Robert Widmann]

> On Jul 21, 2016, at 6:19 PM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi.wu at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> This is nice. Is `areSame()` being proposed because static `==` is the status quo and you're trying to make the point that `==` in the future need not guarantee the same semantics?

Yep!  Equivalence and equality are strictly very different things.

> 
> Nit: I think the more common term in stdlib would be `areEquivalent()`. Do you think `same` in that context (independent of the word "ordering") might erroneously suggest identity?

There is room for improvement here.  Keep ‘em coming.

> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Robert Widmann via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
> Hello Swift Community,
> 
> Harlan Haskins, Jaden Geller, and I have been working on a proposal to clean up the semantics of ordering relations in the standard library.  We have a draft that you can get as a gist. <https://gist.github.com/CodaFi/f0347bd37f1c407bf7ea0c429ead380e>  Any feedback you might have about this proposal helps - though please keeps your comments on Swift-Evolution and not on the gist.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> ~Robert Widmann
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160721/ab054520/attachment-0001.html>