[swift-evolution] [Draft][Proposal] Formalized Ordering
Dave Abrahams
dabrahams at apple.com
Fri Jul 22 20:43:27 CDT 2016
on Fri Jul 22 2016, Jaden Geller <jaden.geller-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
> I really like this idea. I was initially opposed to changing the
> behavior of `===`, but I think I'm for it now. Though there have been
> quite a few situations where I specifically want reference identity,
> in these situations I would not override the `===` operator anyway;
> these objects were identified by their reference.
>
> I think this refinement of the proposal makes the semantics easier to
> reason about, and nicely repurposes the `===` operator instead of
> introducing a new 3rd notion of equality. If users explicitly want to
> compare references, it isn't difficult to create an
> `ObjectIdentifier`, and it probably leads to clearer code in cases
> where the object identity isn't defined by it's reference.
>
> Could types that conform to `Comparable` not get a default implementation of `===`?
Yes they could. In fact I meant to write it and left it out. And the
docs should say don't provide your own definition of `===` for a
Comparable type unless its semantics match the default.
>> On Jul 22, 2016, at 6:20 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> on Fri Jul 22 2016, Daniel Duan <daniel-AT-duan.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jul 22, 2016, at 3:00 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> on Fri Jul 22 2016, Daniel Duan <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 22, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution
>>>>>> <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> on Thu Jul 21 2016, Duan
>>>>>
>>>>>> <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>
>>>>>> <mailto: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 ===.
>>>>
>>>
>>> To spell this out (because I had to think about it for a second): === will be derived from
>>> <=>,
>>> but also becomes default implementation for ==, which remains open for
>>> customization.
>>
>> I was imagining roughly this (untested):
>>
>> /// Two references are identical if they refer to the same
>> /// instance.
>> ///
>> /// - Note: Classes with a more-refined notion of “identical”
>> /// should conform to `Identifiable` and implement `===`.
>> func ===(lhs: AnyObject, rhs: AnyObject) -> Bool {
>> ObjectIdentifier(lhs) == ObjectIdentifier(rhs)
>> }
>>
>> /// Supports testing that two values of `Self` are identical
>> ///
>> /// If `a` and `b` are of type `Self`, `a === b` means that
>> /// `a` and `b` are interchangeable in most code. A conforming
>> /// type can document that specific observable characteristics
>> /// (such as the `capacity` of an `Array`) are inessential and
>> /// thus not to be considered as part of the interchangeability
>> /// guarantee.
>> ///
>> /// - Requires: `===` induces an equivalence relation over
>> /// instances.
>> /// - Note: conforming types will gain an `==` operator that
>> /// forwards to `===`.
>> /// - Note: Types that require domain-specific `==`
>> /// implementations with different semantics (e.g. floating
>> /// point) should define a more-specific overload of `==`,
>> /// which will be used in contexts where the static type is
>> /// known to the compiler.
>> /// - Note: Generic code should usually use `==` to compare
>> /// conforming instances; that will always dispatch to `===`
>> /// and will be unaffected by more specific overloads of
>> /// `==`.
>> protocol Identifiable { // née Equatable name is negotiable
>> func ===(_: Self, _: aSelf) -> Bool
>> }
>>
>> /// Default definition of `==` for Identifiable types.
>> func ==<T: Identifiable>(lhs: T, rhs: T) -> Bool {
>> return lhs === rhs
>> }
>>
>> /// Conforming types have a default total ordering.
>> ///
>> /// If `a` and `b` are of type `Self`, `a <=> b` means that
>> /// `a` and `b` are interchangeable in most code. A conforming
>> /// type can document that specific observable characteristics
>> /// (such as the `capacity` of an `Array`) are inessential and
>> /// thus not to be considered as part of the interchangeability
>> /// guarantee.
>> ///
>> /// - Requires: `<=>` induces a total ordering over
>> /// instances.
>> /// - Requires: the semantics of `<=>` are consistent with
>> /// those of `===`. That is, `(a <=> b) == .equivalent`
>> /// iff `a === b`.
>> /// - Note: conforming types will gain `<`, `<=`, `>`, and `>=`
>> /// operators defined in terms of `<=>`.
>> /// - Note: Types that require domain-specific `<`, etc.
>> /// implementations with different semantics (e.g. floating
>> /// point) should define more-specific overloads of those
>> /// operators, which will be used in contexts where the
>> /// static type is known to the compiler.
>> /// - Note: Generic code can freely use `<=>` or the traditional
>> /// comparison operators to compare conforming instances;
>> /// the result will always be supplied by `<=>`
>> /// and will be unaffected by more specific overloads of
>> /// the other operators.
>> protocol Comparable : Identifiable {
>> func <=> (lhs: Self, rhs: Self) -> Ordering
>> }
>>
>> /// Default implementations of `<`, `<=`, `>`, and `>=`.
>> extension Comparable {
>> static func <(lhs: Self, rhs: Self) -> Bool {
>> return (lhs <=> rhs) == .ascending
>> }
>> static func <=(lhs: Self, rhs: Self) -> Bool {
>> return (rhs <=> lhs) != .ascending
>> }
>> static func >(lhs: Self, rhs: Self) -> Bool {
>> return (lhs <=> rhs) == .descending
>> }
>> static func >=(lhs: Self, rhs: Self) -> Bool {
>> return (rhs <=> lhs) != .descending
>> }
>> }
>>
>>> I like this idea. If we keep === as a separate thing, now users have 3 “opportunities” to define
>>> equality. The must be few, if any, use cases for this.
>>>
>>> Would love to see if anyone on the list can give us an example. Otherwise we should make
>>> areSame === again™!
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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 <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>>
>>>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
>>>>>> <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 <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>
>>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>>>> <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>
>>
>> --
>> Dave
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
--
Dave
More information about the swift-evolution
mailing list