[swift-evolution] Add a `clamp` function to Algorithm.swift

[James Froggatt]

> On 11 Mar 2017, at 00:21, James Froggatt <james.froggatt at me.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 11 Mar 2017, at 00:05, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi.wu at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Some days ago, Ben Cohen laid out the criteria for helper functions in the Standard Library. Here's some of his very enlightening text and the six criteria:
>> 
>>> The operation needs to carry its weight. Even once we have ABI stability, so the size of the std lib becomes less of a concern as it could ship as part of the OS, we still need to keep helper method growth under control. APIs bristling with methods like an over-decorated Xmas tree are bad for usability. As mentioned in the String manifesto, String+Foundation currently has over 200 methods/properties. Helpers are no good if you can’t find them to use them.
>>  
>>> 1. Is it truly a frequent operation?
>>> 2. Is the helper more readable? Is the composed equivalent obvious at a glance?
>>> 3. Does the helper have the flexibility to cover all common cases?
>>> 4. Is there a correctness trap with the composed equivalent? Is there a correctness trap with the helper?
>>> 5. Is there a performance trap with the composed equivalent? Or with the helper?
>>> 6. Does the helper actually encourage misuse?
>> 
>> 
>> The reasons I'm opposed to adding `clamp` are as follows:
>> 
>> It is trivially composed from `min` and `max`, with no correctness traps.
>> 
>> As the discussion above shows, there are correctness traps when you have a `clamp` operation that takes open ranges, whereas the composed form using `min` and `max` does not suffer from the same issue.
>> 
>> It encourages misuse, because Dave's desired use case (for indices) works *only* for arrays and falls down for collections. This is similar to the problem which motivates removal of `enumerated()` as discussed in other threads. In this case, it is not guaranteed that a collection with indices `0..<10` has an index 9.
>> 
> 
> You make a good point, but then how exactly did the range-clamping function make it into the standard library in the first place? I can't think of frequent reason to want to clamp a range to within another range putting my mind to it, yet a clamp function on the Bound type has uses with arrays and offers a clear improvement to readability. Then there's the (potential) correctness trap of mixing up min and max, which I find leads me to need to double-check the logic after typing.
> 
> Seeing those criteria just makes it all the more frustrating that the range-clamping version is the one to have made the cut.

Rereading, you're point is that the range-clamping version does solve a correctness trap (and that the Bound version does not?). Could you explain how you reached to this conclusion?

>> 
>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 4:48 PM, James Froggatt via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>> This topic caught my attention. I support the idea, I'm currently using an extension for this.
>>> 
>>> >>Should “16.clamped(to: 0..<10)” produce 9 or 10?
>>> 
>>> >9
>>> 
>>> Sounds good.
>>> 
>>> >>What about “16.clamped(to: 0..<0)”, which is an empty range?
>>> 
>>> >For `Int`? Crash (which, until about 5 minutes ago, is what I thought would happen if you tried to create a range that’s empty like that). For types that support it, I’d say NaN or something like “nil”/“empty” is the most appropriate return value
>>> 
>>> Nasty but reasonable. I'd support it returning nil in this case, this would provide a warning that the result may not be a valid number, as well as providing this elegant range validation:
>>> 
>>> `if let index = candidate.clamped(to: array.indices) { … }`
>>> 
>>> (or a possible alternative spelling:)
>>> 
>>> `if let index = array.indices.clamp(candidate) { … }`
>>> 
>>> >>Does “16.0.clamped(to: 0..<10)” yield 10.0 or the next-smaller representable Double?
>>> 
>>> >Next-smaller, IMHO. It’s not exactly semantically correct, but AFAIK that’s as correct as Float/Double can be.
>>> 
>>> One could argue the most ‘correct’ value here is the closest representation of the theoretical value, `10.0 - (1 / ∞)`, which should clearly round to 10. However, this also rounds the result back out of the range, meaning it's unsuitable as a result. Both possibilities are, for lack of a better word, ugly.
>>> 
>>> >Mostly though I’d really like to be able to clamp to array indices, which are pretty much always written as a `Range`, rather than a `ClosedRange`. We could write the function for `Range` to only be generic over `Comparable&Integer`, if the floating point corner cases are too much.
>>> 
>>> > - Dave Sweeris
>>> 
>>> My conclusion also. I'd like to see this added to the standard library, if it's in scope for Swift 4.
>>> 
>>> Sidenote: I can't help but think index validation would be better solved in many cases by an optional-returning array subscript (`array[ifPresent: index]`), but I've seen this solution turned down several times due to the lack of discoverability (read: lack of Xcode autocompletion, which I originally thought was a bug until it stayed that way for ~3 years). I'd also like to see this feature get added in some form, eventually.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20170311/db5b3886/attachment.html>