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

[Daniel Duan]

> On Jul 22, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> on Thu Jul 21 2016, Duan <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
> 
>> Great proposal. I want to second that areSame may mislead user to
>> think this is about identity.
>> 
>> I like areEquivalent() but there may be better names.
> 
> It really *is* about identity as I posted in a previous message.  But
> that doesn't change the fact that areEquivalent might be a better name.
> It's one of the things we considered; it just seemed long for no real
> benefit.
> 

If the addresses of the arguments aren’t being used, then we don’t consider
them part of their *identity*. I can follow this logic. My fear is most users
won’t make this leap on their own and get the same initial impression as I did.
It's entirely possible this fear is unfounded. Some educated bikesheding
wouldn't hurt here IMO :)


>> Daniel Duan
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Jul 21, 2016, at 6:32 PM, Robert Widmann via swift-evolution
>>> <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 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> 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.
>>>>> 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
>>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Dave
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160722/0b2ef635/attachment.html>