[swift-evolution] [Draft][Proposal] Formalized Ordering
Dave Abrahams
dabrahams at apple.com
Fri Jul 22 20:45:36 CDT 2016
on Fri Jul 22 2016, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi.wu-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 8:20 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`.
>>
>
> For floating point, I'd hope that `a === b` if `(a <=> b) == .same` *but
> not iff*. This is to satisfy IEEE 754: "Comparisons shall ignore the sign
> of zero (so +0 = −0)".
By “comparisons” they mean the traditional comparison operators, not all
possible comparisons you might want to do.
That single equal sign in their text corresponds to == in the world
being proposed, so that's fine.
>
>
>> /// - 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