On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 1:24 AM, David Sweeris <daveswee...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 24, 2017, at 9:06 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-dev <swift-dev@swift.org>
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:08 PM, Ben Cohen <ben_co...@apple.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 24, 2017, at 6:48 PM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Ben Cohen <ben_co...@apple.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 19, 2017, at 4:29 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-dev <
>>> swift-dev@swift.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Differing behavior in generic and concrete contexts is simply too subtle
>>> to be understandable to the reader.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hardly more subtle then the current “Equatable works like this, with
>>> these strong guarantees. Oh, except for some cases it doesn’t, in which
>>> case ¯\_(ツ)_/¯”
>>>
>>
>> I'm not saying that the status quo is a superior alternative.
>>
>> However, one option is to _weaken_ the guarantees of Equatable such that
>> it guarantees only partial equivalence for `==`. From the perspective of
>> documented semantics, it's not subtle at all but a giant hammer of a
>> change. However, from an actual what-does-the-implementation-do
>> standpoint, it would be acknowledging what is already true. Only code that
>> is already broken when used with floating-point values would become
>> formally "incorrect" in the sense of relying on semantics that are then no
>> longer guaranteed.
>>
>> Such a solution would avoid, as you might say, perpetuating the ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>> approach to floating point.
>>
>> I realize that Comparable admits an exception for FP. This is, IMO, a
>>> serious mistake and needs to be reversed. Equatable has no such exception
>>> and rightly so.
>>>
>>> The clearest demonstrations of how flawed this approach is can be found
>>> in the Standard Library. You can throw a brick at it and hit an example of
>>> something that’s broken by the presence of .nan: random sort orders, ==
>>> implementations that differ based on the identify of the buffer,
>>>
>>
>> In my view, if a sort algorithm cannot accommodate NaN, it's entirely
>> acceptable to trap on NaN--and that is a trivial change.
>>
>>
>> I think this would be user-hostile. This isn’t like out-of-bounds
>> subscript where it’s just not possible to reasonably proceed. NaNs crop up
>> and people don’t expect them to trap when you sort – they expect them to
>> sort to one end, like in Excel.
>>
>
> Honestly, I don't know that most users have thought about this possibility
> at all. Sure, a sort that matches IEEE total order _might_ be justifiable.
> But users are as likely to expect that the last item in the sorted
> collection will be the greatest and that the first item in the sorted
> collection will be the smallest. Now, you can say that NaN compares larger
> than everything, everywhere. But the moment that they try to plug that last
> element into, say, an AppKit UI function, they're toast.
>
> I certainly disagree with ideas of trapping on NaN inside `==` or similar
> functions, but I really do think that an argument can be made that it is
> not reasonable to proceed with sorting an array that contains NaN.
>
>
>> After all, NaN is unordered with respect to everything and one cannot
>> sort the unsortable. And, as shown, the `Array.==` implementation is
>> trivially fixable. The entire standard library can be made NaN-safe in like
>> manner.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> My point was, it’s not about what we can do in the standard library. The
>> std lib only has a handful of methods and sure, we can fix them one by one.
>> It’s about whether the standard library defines types and protocols such
>> that it’s reasonable for programmers to use them to write and use generic
>> algorithms correctly. I’m citing the existing std lib implementations as
>> proof that it’s easy to make mistakes. And I think a more complicated
>> approach, with more operators, more properties, more rules, won’t fix this
>> problem.
>>
>
> Well, to my mind, this problem you state really works out to:
>
> (a) People expect generic algorithms that operate on Comparable types to
> work correctly with floating-point types
> (b) Generic algorithms that operate on Comparable types don't work
> correctly with floating-point types unless the author is very, very careful
> (c) People shouldn't have to be very, very careful to write working
> generic algorithms that work with floating-point types
>
> Which, in turn, really boils down to:
>
> (d) People expect floating-point types not to have numerous unintuitive
> (but learnable) properties, including NaN being unordered
> (e) Floating-point types have numerous unintuitive (but learnable)
> properties, including NaN being unordered
>
> The reason I'm writing to swift-dev (rather than evolution) is that my
> interest is in fixing the standard library. I'm not even convinced that
> this problem you state is fixable, at least on your terms. In the interest
> of not increasing the API surface area, you would propose to blow away (e)
> in the generic but not concrete context. Now, while it's true that an
> alternative to increasing the API surface area is to have the same API
> exhibit context-specific behaviors, that certainly isn't any less
> complicated conceptually, as we would then be faced with the notion that
> floating-point types both have and do not have numerous unintuitive
> properties, depending on the context in which they are used.
>
>> arbitrary duplication in Set/Dictionary etc.
>>>
>>
>> (I disagree that it's arbitrary. If NaN != NaN, then every NaN is
>> properly unique.)
>>
>>
>>> The important point to take from this is not “how do we fix the Standard
>>> Library?” but rather “these errors are easy to make” by anyone writing
>>> generic code using standard protocols. If the Standard Library can’t get
>>> these right, how can we expect others to? There are potentially far worse
>>> bugs that could result. A differently-written sorting algorithm could
>>> corrupt elements (because it relied on substitutability). Other sorting or
>>> searching algorithms could easily go into an infinite loop. These problems
>>> exist because the code relies on the documented behavior of the protocol,
>>> because if you can’t, then what is the point in documenting that behavior?
>>>
>>
>> It's not that the standard library *can't* get these right, but that it
>> currently *doesn't*, because it documents one set of semantics but
>> implements another, then relies on documented semantics that it knows it
>> does not implement. We both agree that this needs to be fixed.
>>
>> The question here is whether it is to be fixed by sticking to the
>> documented semantic guarantees of `==` and bringing all implementations
>> into proper conformance, or alternatively sticking to the implemented
>> behavior of `==` and aligning the documented semantic guarantees to that.
>>
>>
>>> I don’t support solutions such as adding a property indicating
>>> “containsExceptionalValues” (whatever that means), and expecting every
>>> author of a generic algorithm that uses Equatable to remember to call it,
>>> and craft custom paranoid behavior (if there is any reasonable behavior)
>>> based on it. With recursive conformance landed on master, we finally have a
>>> generics system where writing algorithms against Collection can be
>>> considered approachable by ordinary users. You no longer have to know
>>> things like how Collection.SubSequence needs to be constrained to also be a
>>> Collection – it just is. We would be negating this good work to now
>>> introduce a whole new set of gotchas that we expect people to know (without
>>> the type system even helping them in this case) about how some types,
>>> including standard library types, flout the documented rules for Equatable
>>> and Comparable, and that you need to use one of a handful of properties to
>>> hack in special cases to handle it.
>>>
>>
>> The gotchas aren't new; they arise when using floating point values,
>> originate with the IEEE definition of floating point equivalence, and exist
>> in some form in every language that has implemented collections of floating
>> point values. Crucially, they exist today in Swift; only, we haven't
>> documented it.
>>
>> And as a user of algorithms, what should you do? If a generic algorithm
>>> doesn’t document how it handles these special cases, should you assume it
>>> doesn’t? Check the code? Experiment to find out?
>>>
>>> This problem also spreads, virus-like, once we have conditional
>>> conformance that makes containers equatable when their elements are.
>>> [Double] would need to propagate it’s elements’ “exceptionality", to
>>> avoid problems with [Double]. Double? will have to do the same.
>>>
>>
>> This isn't a _problem_. In fact, I consider this to be a key _feature_.
>> Naturally, every protocol conformance (conditional or not) must implement
>> all protocol requirements, so if we add additional requirements they must
>> be implemented. What I'm saying here is that *it may be desirable* to have
>> some protocol-based API to distinguish partial from full equivalence
>> relations. If you accept that premise, then it is the logical consequence
>> that if you conditionally conform `Array` to `Equatable`, you will have to
>> implement any new APIs, and in so doing, document how equivalence of arrays
>> of floating point values relates to floating point equivalence. For me,
>> this is a _good thing_: it documents _in code_ something that today is
>> muddled through.
>>
>> The explanation that a method on `Float` is a "floating-point context"
>>> but a method on `[Float]` is *not a "floating point context"* is, IMO,
>>> indefensible.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nevertheless, I will attempt to defend it :)
>>>
>>> I find it odd that violating the documented requirements of a protocol
>>> is considered defensible, but expecting types comply with those
>>> requirements is indefensible. A principled stance would be to say that
>>> Float shouldn’t conform to Equatable (because… it doesn’t!) and requiring
>>> all calls to supply a predicate (and maybe amending types like Dictionary
>>> to allow you to supply one). That won’t fly though – users would complain –
>>> so instead we are in this murky ground.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think we should defend violating the documented requirements of a
>> protocol. Either (a) Float should not conform to Equatable (agree, this is
>> a non-starter); (b) how Float conforms to Equatable should be brought into
>> conformance with documented semantics (your stance); or (c) what semantics
>> are documented should be brought into alignment with how conformance is
>> actually implemented (my stance). Naturally, in the last case, additional
>> APIs should be added as needed to make such reduced semantic guarantees
>> useful for generic algorithms.
>>
>> Later in the thread, you mention a possible fix for sort:
>>>
>>> `sort()` is problematic, but not if a custom predicate is supplied.
>>>
>>>
>>> So, we are potentially trading off one subtlety (that < behaves
>>> differently in generic and non-generic contexts) for another (that you need
>>> to know that you need to pass in a special predicate for sorting, or you
>>> get nonsense results). Knowing when an algorithm requires you to supply a
>>> predicate (like sort) vs when handling for the special case is built in
>>> (like equatable) seems far worse complication to me than knowing one rule:
>>> that generically when constrained to Comparable, Float adheres to the
>>> requirements of Comparable. Always. That is a consistent rule that you need
>>> to learn once and that doesn’t vary depending on which algorithm you’re
>>> using.
>>>
>>
>> I would argue that Float should _always_ adhere to the requirements of
>> Comparable, in all contexts. The question is, rather: what can be the
>> requirements of Comparable such that Float can always adhere to them?
>>
>> Another alternative proposed in previous threads is to give Comparable an
>>> additional operator (<=> or .compare(to:) that will always enforce a total
>>> ordering, and sort can use that. This is, afaict, C#’s solution –
>>> double.NaN < 1.0, 1.0 < double.NaN and double.NaN == double.NaN all return
>>> false, but Comparer<double>.Default.compare returns -1, 1 and 0
>>> respectively.
>>>
>>
>> This is, essentially, the endpoint of what I'm proposing.
>>
>> Equatable would vend (modulo bikeshedding):
>> `==`, a partial equivalence relation
>> `~`, a full equivalence relation
>> `containsExceptionalValues` (yes, this is a deliberately terrible name,
>> because it's meant to go through bikeshedding), a Boolean value to indicate
>> whether `==` is the same as `~`
>>
>> Comparable would vend (modulo bikeshedding):
>> `<`, `>`, <=`, `>=`, defined as now
>> `<=>`, as in C# `compare` (or maybe, to emphasize the point, `<~>`)
>> `containsExceptionalValues`, inherited from `Equatable`, to document the
>> relationship between `<` (etc.) and the spaceship operator
>>
>>
>>
>> This looks to me to be an absurd mess of operations, none of which will
>> have much hope of being used in a coherent fashion by most people. Should I
>> use == or ~ here? What are the rules again? Will people remember to not use
>> < when they really need <=>? Probably not. Did the author of this framework
>> I’m using remember? Dunno.
>>
>
> The syntax here is not the point (or if it is, it can be bikeshedded). The
> point I'm trying to make is that what you're criticizing as _incoherent_ is
> also _inescapable_. Floating-point types have a notion of equivalence that
> isn't full equivalence. For certain use cases (both concrete and generic),
> we want that partial equivalence, while for other use cases (both concrete
> and generic), we truly want full equivalence. To work with floating-point
> types correctly, a user must know that there is a difference between the
> two. If there is no hope of "most people" understanding this distinction
> when one relation is named `==` and the other is named `~`, then _a
> fortiori_ there is no hope of "most people" understanding the distinction
> when they're conflated into one operator `==` that has different behaviors
> in different contexts.
>
> The C# model of compare works because < is not available generically.
>> There is no choice between < and <=>, and so the model is simple and easily
>> understood by both algorithm implementors and users. And if you need a
>> different ordering, you can supply your own custom comparator. As far as I
>> can tell, it’s a good model and users are happy with it. Swift is
>> different, since the concrete < *is*exposed to the generic
>> implementation, but having two possibilities and expecting users to pick is
>> IMO a bad idea. Hence the proposed fix that Float’s Comparable.< is
>> required to be a total order, per the requirements of Comparable,
>> essentially giving us the C# model.
>>
>
> A true C# model would be fine, but the key point of that model to my mind
> is that partial equivalence and full equivalence are spelled differently
> (that is, `==` and `Equals`, respectively). It would not work with IEEE
> `==` being spelled the same way as Comparable `==`. If we were to rename
> the IEEE operation `&==` instead, then we'd functionally have a design
> that's broadly similar to the earlier version, only with different names:
>
> Equatable would vend `==`, a full equivalence relation (and `!=`)
> Comparable would vend `<`, `>`, `<=`, `>=`, now operators that reflect a
> total order over the set of all values; and maybe `<=>`
> Floating point would additionally vend `&==` and `&<` (and `&!=`, `&<`,
> `&>`, `&<=`, `&>=`)
>
> One key difference here would be that the partial equivalence relation
> would now only be found on floating-point types, and it would not be
> possible to write a generic algorithm that operates on any partially
> equatable or equatable type. But the other--and major--issues would be (a)
> that all concrete uses of floating-point comparison operators would have to
> be migrated to append an extra `&`; and (b) this syntax suggests that most
> users want to use `==` *instead of* `&==`, which I'm not sure is the
> case--and certainly isn't the case if they're trying to do the same things
> they're used to doing with floating-point values in other languages.
>
>
> What about having the protocol hierarchy look like this? (All names
> subject to bikeshedding, of course)
>
Please see earlier replies summarizing core team members' persuasive
arguments as to why not multiple protocol hierarchies like this.
protocol MaybeEquatable {
> static func ?== (lhs: Self, rhs: Self) -> Bool?
> }
> protocol MostlyEquatable : MaybeEquatable {
> static func == (lhs: Self, rhs: Self) -> Bool
> }
> extension MostlyEquatable {
> static func ?== (lhs: Self, rhs: Self) -> Bool? { return lhs == rhs } //
> allows a `MostlyEquatable` or `Equatable` to function as a `MaybeEquatable`
> without any extra code
> }
> protocol Equatable : MostlyEquatable {} // purely a semantic difference,
> no extra syntax
>
> protocol MaybeComparable : MaybeEquatable {
> static func ?< (lhs: Self, rhs: Self) -> Bool?
> // plus the rest of them
> }
> protocol MostlyComparable : MaybeComparable, MostlyEquatable {
> static func < (lhs: Self, rhs: Self) -> Bool
> // plus the rest of them
> }
> extension MostlyComparable {
> static func ?< (lhs: Self, rhs: Self) -> Bool? { return lhs < rhs } //
> allows a `MostlyComparable` or `Comparable` to function as a
> `MaybeComparable` without any extra code
> // plus the rest of them
> }
> protocol Comparable : MostlyComparable, Equatable {} // purely a semantic
> difference, no extra syntax
>
> extension Double : MostlyComparable {
> static func ?== (lhs: Double, rhs: Double) -> Bool? {
> return lhs.isNaN || rhs.isNaN ? nil : lhs == rhs
> }
> static func ?< (lhs: Double, rhs: Double) -> Bool? {
> return lhs.isNaN || rhs.isNaN || (lhs.isInfinite == true && rhs.isInfinite
> == true && lhs.sign == rhs.sign) ? nil : lhs < rhs
> }
> static func == (lhs: Double, rhs: Double) -> Bool {
> // whatever current impl is
> }
> static func < (lhs: Double, rhs: Double) -> Bool {
> // whatever current impl is
> }
> }
>
>
> This would let people easily switch between the two kinds of "correct"
> generic comparisons (returning a `Bool?` for types that could have invalid
> comparisons and a `Bool` for types that can't), as well as easily opting
> into using IEEE-754's current "arguably incompatible with sane generic
> programming" behavior (by constraining T to "MostlyComparable" instead of
> "Comparable") if that's what they really want.
>
> `Collection` could have different implementations of `==` depending on
> whether `Element` conforms to "MaybeEquatable" or
> "MostlyEquatable/Equatable", solving the "a = [Double.nan]; print(a == a)
> // prints true" issue.
>
> This doesn't involve trapping on anything, so dunno what the performance
> implications would be. All the extra work would be contained in the "?*"
> functions, though, so at least existing code wouldn't sudden get slower.
>
> - Dave Sweeris
>
_______________________________________________
swift-dev mailing list
swift-dev@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev
