[swift-evolution] [Draft] Rename Sequence.elementsEqual
xiaodi.wu at gmail.com
Sat Oct 14 23:59:05 CDT 2017
On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:48 PM, Jonathan Hull <jhull at gbis.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 2017, at 9:21 PM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi.wu at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:55 PM, Jonathan Hull <jhull at gbis.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 14, 2017, at 7:55 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <
>> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> > Ordered, yes, but it’s only admittedly poor wording that suggests
>> multi-pass, and I don’t think anything there suggests finite.
>> If a Sequence is "guaranteed to iterate the same every time," then surely
>> it must be multi-pass; what's the alternative?
>> Single-pass, but where two dictionaries/sets with the same elements would
>> be guaranteed to output the same ordering.
> I'm not sure I understand. A single-pass sequence is one where iteration
> can happen only once because it is destructive. By definition, then, it is
> not guaranteed to "iterate the same" a second time. Neither sets nor
> dictionaries are single-pass sequences. Kevin says that his definition of a
> "Sequence" is something "guaranteed to iterate the same every time," which
> requires them to be multi-pass, does it not?
> But if I am comparing two single-pass things, the order can still be
> defined when they compare that one time. Single-pass doesn’t mean that the
> order is undefined. On the contrary, as you point out, it has a “first”
> thing, and then a thing after that, and so on.
> Regardless, most of the objects we are talking about here are multi-pass
> collections (e.g. sets).
Right, but I'm trying to figure out why Kevin wants a Sequence to "iterate
the same every time" and in what way that's not simply a Collection.
>> That ordering can be arbitrary, but it shouldn’t leak internal
>> representation such that the method used to create identical things affects
>> the outcome of generic methods because of differences in internal
>> It would be better to say that the iteration order is well-defined. That
>> will almost always mean documented, and usually predictable though
>> obviously e.g. RNGs and iterating in random order will not be predictable
>> by design.
>>> That's actually more semantically constrained than what Swift calls a
>>> `Collection` (which requires conforming types to be multi-pass and(?)
>>> finite). By contrast, Swift's `SpongeBob` protocol explicitly permits
>>> conforming single-pass, infinite, and/or unordered types.
>>> I think you’re talking about Sequence here, I’ve lost track of your
>>> nonsense by now. Yes, the current Swift protocol named Sequence allows
>>> unordered types. You seem to keep asserting that but not actually
>>> addressing my argument, which is *that allowing Sequences to be
>>> unordered with the current API is undesired and actively harmful, and
>>> should* *therefore** be changed*.
>> What is harmful about it?
>> After thinking about it, I think the harmful bit is that unordered
>> sequences are leaking internal representation (In your example, this is
>> causing people to be surprised when two sets with identical elements are
>> generating different sequences/orderings based on how they were created).
>> You are correct when you say that this problem is even true for for-in.
> I would not say it is a problem. Rather, by definition, iteration involves
> retrieving one element after another; if you're allowed to do that with
> Set, then the elements of a Set are observably ordered in some way. Since
> it's not an OrderedSet--i.e., order doesn't matter--then the only sensible
> conclusion is that the order of elements obtained in a for...in loop must
> be arbitrary. If you think this is harmful, then you must believe that one
> should be prohibited from iterating over an instance of Set. Otherwise, Set
> is inescapably a Sequence by the Swift definition of Sequence. All
> extension methods on Sequence like drop(while:) are really just
> conveniences for common things that you can do with iterated access; to my
> mind, they're essentially just alternative ways of spelling various
> for...in loops.
> I think an argument could be made that you shouldn’t be able to iterate
> over a set without first defining an ordering on it (even if that ordering
> is somewhat arbitrary). Maybe we have something like a “Sequenc(e)able”
> protocol which defines things which can be turned into a sequence when
> combined with some sort of ordering. One possible ordering could be the
> internal representation (At least in that case we are calling it out
> specifically). If I had to say “setA.arbitraryOrder.elementsEqual(setB.arbitraryOrder)”
> I would definitely be less surprised when it returns false even though setA
> == setB.
Well, that's a totally different direction, then; you're arguing that `Set`
and `Dictionary` should not conform to `Sequence` altogether. That's fine
(it's also a direction that some of us explored off-list a while ago), but
at this point in Swift's evolution, realistically, it's not within the
realm of possible changes.
> If that is unergonomic, we could define an arbitrary but consistent
> ordering over all Swift types that can be used to create a predictable
> sequence order for unordered types. That is necessarily slower, but much
> safer… and people concerned with speed could use something like
> ‘arbitraryOrder’ above to regain full speed.
> I am not arguing that that is necessarily the right approach, just that we
> need more thought/discussion around what is actually causing the confusion
> here: The fact that we are assuming an ordering on something where the
> ordering is undefined.
The underlying source of the confusion is clear; I'm trying to encourage us
*not* to talk about it here, though, as it's not a tractable problem for
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution