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

[Dave Abrahams]

on Fri Jul 22 2016, Daniel Duan <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

>> 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 :)

Well, it's still a very real question whether we ought to have the
additional API surface implied by areSame, or wether we should collapse
it with ===.

>
>>> 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>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>

-- 
Dave