on Fri Jul 22 2016, Daniel Duan <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> On Jul 22, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> >> >> on Thu Jul 21 2016, Duan > >> <swift-evolution@swift.org >> <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> >> wrote: >> >>> Great proposal. I want to second that areSame may mislead user to >>> think this is about identity. >>> >>> I like areEquivalent() but there may be better names. >> >> It really *is* about identity as I posted in a previous message. But >> that doesn't change the fact that areEquivalent might be a better name. >> It's one of the things we considered; it just seemed long for no real >> benefit. >> > > If the addresses of the arguments aren’t being used, then we don’t consider > them part of their *identity*. I can follow this logic. My fear is most users > won’t make this leap on their own and get the same initial impression as I > did. > It's entirely possible this fear is unfounded. Some educated bikesheding > wouldn't hurt here IMO :)
Well, it's still a very real question whether we ought to have the additional API surface implied by areSame, or wether we should collapse it with ===. > >>> Daniel Duan >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Jul 21, 2016, at 6:32 PM, Robert Widmann via swift-evolution >>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> 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> 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. >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> swift-evolution mailing list >>>> swift-evolution@swift.org >>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>> _______________________________________________ >>> swift-evolution mailing list >>> swift-evolution@swift.org >>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>> >> >> -- >> Dave >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > -- Dave _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
