> On Jul 21, 2016, at 6:19 PM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > This is nice. Is `areSame()` being proposed because static `==` is the status > quo and you're trying to make the point that `==` in the future need not > guarantee the same semantics?
Yep! Equivalence and equality are strictly very different things. > > Nit: I think the more common term in stdlib would be `areEquivalent()`. Do > you think `same` in that context (independent of the word "ordering") might > erroneously suggest identity? There is room for improvement here. Keep ‘em coming. > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Robert Widmann via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: > Hello Swift Community, > > Harlan Haskins, Jaden Geller, and I have been working on a proposal to clean > up the semantics of ordering relations in the standard library. We have a > draft that you can get as a gist. > <https://gist.github.com/CodaFi/f0347bd37f1c407bf7ea0c429ead380e> Any > feedback you might have about this proposal helps - though please keeps your > comments on Swift-Evolution and not on the gist. > > Cheers, > > ~Robert Widmann > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> > >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
