<div dir="ltr">Conditional conformances doesn't solve enum equality though, because there likely won't be a way to utter "enum Foo : Equatable where <all types across all associated value payloads are Equatable>" with the generics syntax that's available, and conformance alone wouldn't be able to derive the implementation. It'll require some work on the compiler's part to generate the right implementation—I mentioned a draft proposal I wrote a while back for auto-equality of enums and structs where all the components are equatable <<a href="https://gist.github.com/allevato/2fd10290bfa84accfbe977d8ac07daad" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">https://gist.github.com/allevato/2fd10290bfa84accfbe977d8ac07daad</a>> in another thread, but as Robert mentioned, the missing piece is how users opt in/out of it.<div><br></div><div>If you just want to check the case of an enum in a test, what about this?</div><div><br></div><div> enum Foo {</div><div> case bar</div><div> case baz(Int)</div><div> }</div><div> let foo = Foo.baz(5)</div><div> guard case .baz = foo else { XCTFail("expected baz"); return }</div><div><br></div><div>The "return" being required isn't ideal because XCTFail doesn't return Never, but other than that it's not *horrible*. You can do whatever pattern matching you need to use or ignore associated values as part of your comparison.</div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 5:59 PM Andy Chou via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class="gmail_msg">Yes, here's a reference to the conditional conformance proposal which was accepted:<div class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"></div><div class="gmail_msg"><a href="https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0143-conditional-conformances.md" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0143-conditional-conformances.md</a></div><div class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"></div><div class="gmail_msg">But as I mention in my post, there are cases it doesn't handle. Specifically, when the associated types for an enum aren't equatable themselves, it's still possible to define equality on the enum cases without associated values.</div></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"></div><div class="gmail_msg">Andy</div></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg"><blockquote type="cite" class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg">On Jan 17, 2017, at 5:45 PM, Robert Widmann <<a href="mailto:devteam.codafi@gmail.com" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">devteam.codafi@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="m_-8364123832418668739Apple-interchange-newline gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg">Automatic “equatability” of aggregates that contain equatable members has been discussed on this list quite a few times. (I think I had a branch at one point that was exploring this kind of deriving mechanism… It seems to be lost to the sands of time). Everybody seems to agree that it’s a worthwhile feature, but there needs to be thought put into how it is exposed to the end user. e.g. Should we continue with silently implementing these protocols if we can, or should there be some kind of annotation to tell the compiler to only synthesize what the user wants?<br class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"><blockquote type="cite" class="gmail_msg">On Jan 17, 2017, at 7:15 PM, Andy Chou via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg">Enums with associated values can be very useful in Swift, but once you add associated values you lose some properties, especially equality:<br class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg">```<br class="gmail_msg">enum AuthenticationResponse {<br class="gmail_msg"> case success<br class="gmail_msg"> case alert(Alert)<br class="gmail_msg"> case reauthenticate<br class="gmail_msg">}<br class="gmail_msg">```<br class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg">Testing for a specific case requires a switch statement or the if pattern match syntax:<br class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"><span class="m_-8364123832418668739Apple-tab-span gmail_msg" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>if case .success = response { … }<br class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg">But while this works well for control flow, it doesn’t work well for cases where we want a Bool, such as assert(). There are also common situations with lists and libraries like RxSwift where a filtering function uses a Bool valued closure. In these situations the best we can do is write functions like:<br class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg">```<br class="gmail_msg">enum AuthenticationResponse {<br class="gmail_msg"> case success<br class="gmail_msg"> case alert(Alert)<br class="gmail_msg"> case reauthenticate<br class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"> var isSuccess: Bool {<br class="gmail_msg"> if case .success = self {<br class="gmail_msg"> return true<br class="gmail_msg"> } else {<br class="gmail_msg"> return false<br class="gmail_msg"> }<br class="gmail_msg"> }<br class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"> var isReauthenticate: Bool {<br class="gmail_msg"> if case .reauthenticate = self {<br class="gmail_msg"> return true<br class="gmail_msg"> } else {<br class="gmail_msg"> return false<br class="gmail_msg"> }<br class="gmail_msg"> }<br class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"> var isAlert: Bool {<br class="gmail_msg"> if case .alert(_) = self {<br class="gmail_msg"> return true<br class="gmail_msg"> } else {<br class="gmail_msg"> return false<br class="gmail_msg"> }<br class="gmail_msg"> }<br class="gmail_msg">}<br class="gmail_msg">```<br class="gmail_msg">Any suggestions better than writing out each of these functions explicitly?<br class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg">The conditional conformances proposal coming in Swift 4 solves some of this issue, but not completely. If Alert isn’t Equatable, it is still useful to test whether the result is .success. For example:<br class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"><span class="m_-8364123832418668739Apple-tab-span gmail_msg" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>assert(response == .success)<br class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg">This is perfectly intelligible and I would argue that equality should be defined for enums with associated values omitted:<br class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"><span class="m_-8364123832418668739Apple-tab-span gmail_msg" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>assert(response == .alert)<br class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg">Here we are ignoring the associated values, and merely checking if the enum case is the same.<br class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg">Andy<br class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg">_______________________________________________<br class="gmail_msg">swift-evolution mailing list<br class="gmail_msg"><a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br class="gmail_msg"><a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a><br class="gmail_msg"></blockquote><br class="gmail_msg"></div></div></blockquote></div><br class="gmail_msg"></div></div>_______________________________________________<br class="gmail_msg">
swift-evolution mailing list<br class="gmail_msg">
<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br class="gmail_msg">
<a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" rel="noreferrer" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a><br class="gmail_msg">
</blockquote></div>