<div dir="ltr">On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Dave Abrahams <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dabrahams@apple.com" target="_blank">dabrahams@apple.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
on Sat Apr 22 2017, Xiaodi Wu <<a href="http://xiaodi.wu-AT-gmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">xiaodi.wu-AT-gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Dave Abrahams <<a href="mailto:dabrahams@apple.com">dabrahams@apple.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>><br>
>> on Tue Apr 18 2017, Xiaodi Wu <<a href="http://xiaodi.wu-AT-gmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">xiaodi.wu-AT-gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Ben Cohen via swift-evolution <<br>
>> > <a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>> ><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> On Apr 17, 2017, at 9:40 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <<br>
>> >> <a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> On Apr 17, 2017, at 9:07 AM, Joe Groff via swift-evolution <<br>
>> >> <a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> On Apr 15, 2017, at 9:49 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <<br>
>> >> <a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> For example, I expect `XCTAssertEqual<T : FloatingPoint>(_:_:)` to be<br>
>> >> vended as part of XCTest, in order to make sure that `XCTAssertEqual(<br>
>> resultOfComputation,<br>
>> >> Double.nan)` always fails.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Unit tests strike me as an example of where you really *don't* want<br>
>> level<br>
>> >> 1 comparison semantics. If I'm testing the output of an FP operation, I<br>
>> >> want to be able to test that it produces nan when I expect it to, or<br>
>> that<br>
>> >> it produces the right zero.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> I find it very concerning that == will have different results based on<br>
>> >> concrete vs generic type parameters. This can only lead to significant<br>
>> >> confusion down the road. I’m highly concerned about situations where<br>
>> >> taking a concrete algorithm and generalizing it (with generics) will<br>
>> change<br>
>> >> its behavior.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> It is already the case that you can start with a concrete algorithm,<br>
>> >> generalize it, and get confusing results – just with a different<br>
>> starting<br>
>> >> point. If you start with a concrete algorithm on Int, then generalize<br>
>> it to<br>
>> >> all Equatable types, then your algorithm will have unexpected behavior<br>
>> for<br>
>> >> floats, because these standard library types fail to follow the rules<br>
>> >> explicitly laid out for conforming to Equatable.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> This is bad. Developers need to be able to rely on those rules. The<br>
>> >> standard library certainly does:<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> let a: [Double] = [(0/0)]<br>
>> >> var b = a<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> // true, because fast path buffer pointer comparison:<br>
>> >> a == b<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> b.reserveCapacity(10) // force a reallocation<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> // now false, because memberwise comparison and nan != nan,<br>
>> >> // violating the reflexivity requirement of Equatable:<br>
>> >> a == b<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Maybe we could go through and special-case all the places in the<br>
>> standard<br>
>> >> library that rely on this, accounting for the floating point behavior<br>
>> >> (possibly reducing performance as a result). But we shouldn't expect<br>
>> users<br>
>> >> to.<br>
>> >><br>
>> ><br>
>> > I was not thinking about the issue illustrated above, but this is<br>
>> > definitely problematic to me.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > To be clear, this proposal promises that `[0 / 0 as Double]` will be made<br>
>> > to compare unequal with itself, yes?<br>
>><br>
>> Nope.<br>
>><br>
>> As you know, equality of arrays is implemented generically and based on<br>
>> the equatable conformance of their elements. Therefore, two arrays of<br>
>> equatable elements are equal iff the conforming implementation of<br>
>> Equatable's == is true for all elements.<br>
>><br>
>> > It is very clear that here we are working with a concrete FP type and<br>
>> > not in a generic context, and thus all IEEE FP behavior should apply.<br>
>><br>
>> I suppose that's one interpretation, but it's not the right one.<br>
>><br>
>> If this were C++, it would be different, because of the way template<br>
>> instantiation works: in a generic context like the == of Array, the<br>
>> compiler would look up the syntactically-available == for the elements<br>
>> and use that. But Swift is not like that; static lookup is done at the<br>
>> point where Array's == is compiled, and it only finds the == that's<br>
>> supplied by the Element's Equatable conformance.<br>
>><br>
>> This may sound like an argument based on implementation details of the<br>
>> language, and to some extent it is. But that is also the fundamental<br>
>> nature of the Swift language (and one for which we get many benefits),<br>
>> and it is hopeless to paper over it. For example, I can claim that all<br>
>> doubles are equal to one another:<br>
>><br>
>> 9> func == (lhs: Double, rhs: Double) -> Bool { return true }<br>
>> 10> 4.0 == 1.0<br>
>> $R2: Bool = true<br>
>> 11> [4.0] == [1.0] // so the arrays should be equal too!<br>
>> $R3: Bool = false<br>
>><br>
>> Another way to look at this is that Array is not a numeric vector, and<br>
>> won't be one no matter what you do ([1.0] + [2.0] => [1.0, 2.0]). So it<br>
>> would be wrong for you to expect it to reflect the numeric properties of<br>
>> its elements.<br>
>><br>
>> >> This is a bump in the rug – push it down in one place, it pops up in<br>
>> >> another. I feel like this proposal at least moves the bump to where<br>
>> fewer<br>
>> >> people will trip over it. I think it highly likely that the<br>
>> intersection of<br>
>> >> developers who understand enough about floating point to write truly<br>
>> >> correct concrete code, but won’t know about or discover the documented<br>
>> >> difference in generic code, is far smaller than the set of people who<br>
>> hit<br>
>> >> problems with the existing behavior.<br>
>> >><br>
>> ><br>
>> > So, to extend this analogy, I'd rather say that the bump is not in the<br>
>> rug<br>
>> > [Comparable] but rather in a section of the floor [FP NaN]. The rug might<br>
>> > overlie the bump, but the bump will always be there and people will find<br>
>> it<br>
>> > as they walk even if they don't immediately see it.<br>
>><br>
>> Correct.<br>
>><br>
>> > If we don't want people to trip over the bump while walking on the<br>
>> > rug, one very good alternative, IMHO, is to shape the rug so that it<br>
>> > doesn't cover the bump.<br>
>><br>
>> At what cost?<br>
>><br>
>> More specifically: why is it the right behavior, for our audience, to<br>
>> trap when Equatable comparison happens to encounter NaN? Will this not<br>
>> simply "crash" programs in the field that otherwise would have "just<br>
>> worked?"<br>
>><br>
>> > My purpose in exploring an alternative design is to see if it would be<br>
>> > feasible for non-FP-aware comparison operators to refuse to compare NaN,<br>
>> > rather than giving different answers depending on context.<br>
>><br>
>> So... to be clear, this is still different behavior based on context.<br>
>> Is this not just as confusing a result?<br>
>><br>
>> let nan = 0.0 / 0.0<br>
>> print(nan == nan) // false<br>
>> print([nan] == [nan]) // trap<br>
>><br>
><br>
> No, in my alternative proposal:<br>
><br>
> ```<br>
> let nan = 0.0 / 0.0<br>
> print(nan == nan) // trap<br>
> print([nan] == [nan]) // trap<br>
> print(nan &== nan) // false<br>
> print([nan] &== [nan]) // false<br>
> ```<br>
<br>
</div></div>Oh, that's an interesting approach. Now you are asking people to<br>
translate the == in numeric code.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes. Specifically, in floating point code. I guess that's the part about shaping the rug not to cover the bump. IEEE does not require `==` to be the spelling of the quiet equality comparison operator, and it does specifically describe a comparison operator that behaves identically to what I propose as the trapping `==` (which, I believe, is actually spelled in the IEEE standard as `==`).</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I guess I'd want to hear what Steve<br>
Canon has to say about that.<br>
<br>
It still begs all the questions I've asked above, though. Should I<br>
repeat them?<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
>> > I now strongly believe that this may make for a design simultaneously<br>
>> > _less_ complex *and* _more_ comprehensive (as measured by the<br>
>> > flatness-of-rug metric).<br>
>><br>
>> I'm certainly willing to discuss it, but so far it doesn't seem like<br>
>> you've been willing to answer the central questions above.<br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> -Dave<br>
>><br>
<br>
</div></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">--<br>
-Dave<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div></div>