[swift-evolution] [Draft] Rename Sequence.elementsEqual
xiaodi.wu at gmail.com
Mon Oct 16 18:46:45 CDT 2017
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Jonathan Hull <jhull at gbis.com> wrote:
> To expand on this, Set([1,2,3,4,5]).hasPrefix([1,2,3]) currently returns
> true. But let’s say a year from now, we change Set to return an ordering
> based on hash values (which is entirely reasonable). Suddenly the same code
> may return true or false.
> No guarantees will be broken by doing that, but the result has still
> changed because we are building on top of undefined behavior. Collection
> says nothing about the ordering over different builds of a program.
So that's not breakage. Results are allowed to change; `hasPrefix` should
change if the iteration order changes, and the iteration order is allowed
to change over different builds. Just like how the memory layout is allowed
to change, or anything else not explicitly guaranteed by public API
semantics is allowed to change.
On Oct 16, 2017, at 4:11 PM, Jonathan Hull via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
On Oct 16, 2017, at 1:05 PM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi.wu at gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:49 Jonathan Hull <jhull at gbis.com> wrote:
> On Oct 16, 2017, at 7:20 AM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi.wu at gmail.com> wrote:
> To start with, the one you gave as an example at the beginning of this
>> discussion: Two sets with identical elements which have different internal
>> storage and thus give different orderings as sequences. You yourself have
>> argued that the confusion around this is enough of a problem that we need
>> to make a source-breaking change (renaming it) to warn people that the
>> results of the ‘elementsEqual’ algorithm are undefined for sets and
> No, I am arguing that the confusion about ‘elementsEqual’ is foremost a
> problem with its name; the result of this operation is not at all undefined
> for two sets but actually clearly defined: it returns true if two sets have
> the same elements in the same iteration order, which is a publicly
> observable behavior of sets (likewise dictionaries).
> But that iteration order is undefined and could easily change due to
> changes in the private/internal structure of sets/dictionaries. Algorithms
> that rely on that “publicly observable behavior” (i.e. leaking of
> internals) will suddenly break.
And an algorithm in which such “sudden breakage” would occur is…?
Here are a few off the top of my head:
What do these methods mean with regards to Set’s “publicly observable
You keep claiming that this bug is a feature because it is the current
> behavior… but that is tautological reasoning.
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution at swift.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution