> On Jul 22, 2016, at 9:10 PM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 9:08 PM, Matthew Johnson <matt...@anandabits.com > <mailto:matt...@anandabits.com>> wrote: > >> On Jul 22, 2016, at 9:04 PM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com >> <mailto:xiaodi...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 8:57 PM, Matthew Johnson <matt...@anandabits.com >> <mailto:matt...@anandabits.com>> wrote: >> >>> On Jul 22, 2016, at 8:54 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution >>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Jaden Geller via swift-evolution >>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >>> "The totalOrder predicate will order these cases, and it also distinguishes >>> between different representations of NaNs and between the same decimal >>> floating point number encoded in different ways." >>> - >>> [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_floating_point#Total-ordering_predicate >>> >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_floating_point#Total-ordering_predicate>) >>> >>> Sounds like `===` should not return `true` for zeros of different signs, >>> then. >>> >>> Fair enough; the result of that will be, as Pyry noted above, that: >>> >>> ``` >>> [-0.0, 1.0, .nan, 0.0].firstIndex(of: 0.0) //=> 3, not 0 >>> ``` >> >> Maybe we need floating point specific implementations of some algorithms to >> resolve this problem? >> >> It doesn’t seem like there is a way to provide the semantics required by >> generic algorithms and still provide the expected behavior for floating >> point values. >> >> Well, what I'm trying to say is that generic algorithms such as `index(of:)` >> require only an equivalence relation. For floating point types, there are >> three ways to slice it: >> >> 1. NaN != NaN and +0 == -0 [what the traditional comparison operators are >> constrained to do] >> 2. NaN == NaN, +0 == -0, and the same number encoded different ways compare >> equal >> 3. NaN == NaN, +0 != -0, and the same number encoded different ways compare >> not equal >> >> Both #2 and #3 can fall out of valid equivalence relations; if `===` behaved >> like #2 for FloatingPoint types, then generic algorithms work just fine. If >> we insist on using a total ordering defined by `<=>` all the time, then >> we've got problems. > > And if we don’t then we’re back to 3 different concepts of equality. There > is definitely a tradeoff no matter what we choose. > > If some types have three concepts of equality, each with their particular > use, why must we eliminate one of them?
This isn’t about eliminating concepts of equality for a type. They can have 42 if they want. This is about the right way to define the semantics of specific protocols. It says nothing about additional notions of equality a type may have available. The difficulty is finding a design for the protocols that makes sense with floating point types because we want them to be able to conform to the protocols. > >>>> On Jul 22, 2016, at 6:48 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution >>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> on Fri Jul 22 2016, Jaden Geller <swift-evolution@swift.org >>>> <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> For floating point, I'd hope that `a === b` if `(a <=> b) == .same` >>>>>> *but not iff*. This is to satisfy IEEE 754: "Comparisons shall >>>>>> ignore the sign of zero (so +0 = −0)". >>>>> >>>>> I don't see why both `(+0) === (-0)` and `(+0) <=> (-0)` can't return >>>>> `true` and `.same`, respectively. This doesn't break the total >>>>> ordering of values. `===` doesn't do raw memory comparison. They're >>>>> "identical", so it ought to return `true`. >>>> >>>> It ought to do whatever IEEE-754 specifies that its total ordering test >>>> does. That is, IEEE-754 gets to decide whether the difference between >>>> +0 and -0 is “essential” to IEEE-754 floating point types, or not. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 22, 2016, at 6:37 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution >>>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 8:20 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution >>>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> >>>>>> <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> on Fri Jul 22 2016, Daniel Duan <daniel-AT-duan.org >>>>>> <http://daniel-at-duan.org/>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 22, 2016, at 3:00 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution >>>>>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> >>>>>>>> <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> on Fri Jul 22 2016, Daniel Duan >>>>>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> >>>>>>>> <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> >>>>>>>> <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> >>>>>>>> <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>>>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 22, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution >>>>>>>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>>>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> on Thu Jul 21 2016, Duan >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>>> >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> >>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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 ===. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To spell this out (because I had to think about it for a second): === >>>>>>> will be derived from >>>>>>> <=>, >>>>>>> but also becomes default implementation for ==, which remains open for >>>>>>> customization. >>>>>> >>>>>> I was imagining roughly this (untested): >>>>>> >>>>>> /// Two references are identical if they refer to the same >>>>>> /// instance. >>>>>> /// >>>>>> /// - Note: Classes with a more-refined notion of “identical” >>>>>> /// should conform to `Identifiable` and implement `===`. >>>>>> func ===(lhs: AnyObject, rhs: AnyObject) -> Bool { >>>>>> ObjectIdentifier(lhs) == ObjectIdentifier(rhs) >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> /// Supports testing that two values of `Self` are identical >>>>>> /// >>>>>> /// If `a` and `b` are of type `Self`, `a === b` means that >>>>>> /// `a` and `b` are interchangeable in most code. A conforming >>>>>> /// type can document that specific observable characteristics >>>>>> /// (such as the `capacity` of an `Array`) are inessential and >>>>>> /// thus not to be considered as part of the interchangeability >>>>>> /// guarantee. >>>>>> /// >>>>>> /// - Requires: `===` induces an equivalence relation over >>>>>> /// instances. >>>>>> /// - Note: conforming types will gain an `==` operator that >>>>>> /// forwards to `===`. >>>>>> /// - Note: Types that require domain-specific `==` >>>>>> /// implementations with different semantics (e.g. floating >>>>>> /// point) should define a more-specific overload of `==`, >>>>>> /// which will be used in contexts where the static type is >>>>>> /// known to the compiler. >>>>>> /// - Note: Generic code should usually use `==` to compare >>>>>> /// conforming instances; that will always dispatch to `===` >>>>>> /// and will be unaffected by more specific overloads of >>>>>> /// `==`. >>>>>> protocol Identifiable { // née Equatable name is negotiable >>>>>> func ===(_: Self, _: aSelf) -> Bool >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> /// Default definition of `==` for Identifiable types. >>>>>> func ==<T: Identifiable>(lhs: T, rhs: T) -> Bool { >>>>>> return lhs === rhs >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> /// Conforming types have a default total ordering. >>>>>> /// >>>>>> /// If `a` and `b` are of type `Self`, `a <=> b` means that >>>>>> /// `a` and `b` are interchangeable in most code. A conforming >>>>>> /// type can document that specific observable characteristics >>>>>> /// (such as the `capacity` of an `Array`) are inessential and >>>>>> /// thus not to be considered as part of the interchangeability >>>>>> /// guarantee. >>>>>> /// >>>>>> /// - Requires: `<=>` induces a total ordering over >>>>>> /// instances. >>>>>> /// - Requires: the semantics of `<=>` are consistent with >>>>>> /// those of `===`. That is, `(a <=> b) == .equivalent` >>>>>> /// iff `a === b`. >>>>>> >>>>>> For floating point, I'd hope that `a === b` if `(a <=> b) == .same` *but >>>>>> not iff*. This is to satisfy IEEE 754: "Comparisons shall ignore the >>>>>> sign of zero (so +0 = −0)". >>>>>> >>>>>> /// - Note: conforming types will gain `<`, `<=`, `>`, and `>=` >>>>>> /// operators defined in terms of `<=>`. >>>>>> /// - Note: Types that require domain-specific `<`, etc. >>>>>> /// implementations with different semantics (e.g. floating >>>>>> /// point) should define more-specific overloads of those >>>>>> /// operators, which will be used in contexts where the >>>>>> /// static type is known to the compiler. >>>>>> /// - Note: Generic code can freely use `<=>` or the traditional >>>>>> /// comparison operators to compare conforming instances; >>>>>> /// the result will always be supplied by `<=>` >>>>>> /// and will be unaffected by more specific overloads of >>>>>> /// the other operators. >>>>>> protocol Comparable : Identifiable { >>>>>> func <=> (lhs: Self, rhs: Self) -> Ordering >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> /// Default implementations of `<`, `<=`, `>`, and `>=`. >>>>>> extension Comparable { >>>>>> static func <(lhs: Self, rhs: Self) -> Bool { >>>>>> return (lhs <=> rhs) == .ascending >>>>>> } >>>>>> static func <=(lhs: Self, rhs: Self) -> Bool { >>>>>> return (rhs <=> lhs) != .ascending >>>>>> } >>>>>> static func >(lhs: Self, rhs: Self) -> Bool { >>>>>> return (lhs <=> rhs) == .descending >>>>>> } >>>>>> static func >=(lhs: Self, rhs: Self) -> Bool { >>>>>> return (rhs <=> lhs) != .descending >>>>>> } >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>>> I like this idea. If we keep === as a separate thing, now users have 3 >>>>>>> “opportunities” to define >>>>>>> equality. The must be few, if any, use cases for this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Would love to see if anyone on the list can give us an example. >>>>>>> Otherwise we should make >>>>>>> areSame === again™! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Duan >>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 21, 2016, at 6:32 PM, Robert Widmann via swift-evolution >>>>>>>>>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 21, 2016, at 6:19 PM, Xiaodi Wu >>>>>>>>>>>>> <xiaodi...@gmail.com <mailto:xiaodi...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:xiaodi...@gmail.com <mailto: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> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> swift-evolution mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> swift-evolution mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> >>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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> >>>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Dave >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> swift-evolution mailing list >>>>>>>>>> swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> >>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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> >>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>> >>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> >>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>>> >>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> >>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>> >>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> >>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> swift-evolution mailing list >>>>>>>>> swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> >>>>>>>>> <mailto: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> >>>>>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>>>>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>> >>>>>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>>>>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> >>>>>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>>>>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Dave >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> swift-evolution mailing list >>>>>>>> swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> >>>>>>>> <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> >>>>>>>> <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> >>>>>>>> <mailto: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> >>>>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>>>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>> >>>>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>>>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> >>>>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>>>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Dave >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> swift-evolution mailing list >>>>>> swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> >>>>>> <mailto: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> >>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> swift-evolution mailing list >>>>>> swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> >>>>>> <mailto: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> >>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 <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 <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
