> On Apr 16, 2017, at 11:52 AM, Xiaodi Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Jonathan Hull <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 16, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Xiaodi Wu <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Jonathan Hull via swift-evolution
>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> One benefit of the idea of using comparison metrics instead of changing
>> comparable, is that you could just have two metrics on double. The default
>> one which is closer to what we have now (or the new thing Xiaodi suggested
>> with trapping NaN), and one which matches IEEE. You could in fact make a
>> metric for each level if desired.
>>
>> Right, but I'm arguing that having multiple comparison metrics is
>> _undesirable_. I see the need for one design that can accommodate unordered
>> comparisons. I do not see the need for a second comparison metric.
>
> That is why there is a default metric. For most uses, what you suggest (i.e.
> trapping on NaN) makes sense, and that would be the default. Someone may
> have a need to compare in a way which differentiates NaN or matches a
> different IEEE level, and they can create a metric that provides that
> comparison, and still be able to use it with all of the algorithms in the
> standard library. (Note: I see those alternate metrics as living in a library
> as opposed to the standard library)
>
> FloatingPoint already exposes IEEE total ordering as `isTotallyOrdered`. You
> can use it in `sort(by:)`. That's not what I'm talking about.
>
> This proposal is about the design of `Comparable`. My concern is about `<`
> giving different answers depending on surrounding code. I don't see the point
> of it. Do you?
I agree that ‘<‘ should be consistent.
> It is clear that we will need multiple comparison metrics for some types
> (e.g. Case/Diacritic insensitive compare), and I am suggesting we formalize
> that so we don’t end up with a bunch of random ‘compare(with: optionA:
> optionB:)’ functions which are incompatible across types.
>
> Since the String overhaul is not done, and since localized comparison has
> been explicitly deferred from even the current scope of the String overhaul,
> I don't see how we can design around this with any sort of insight.
The point is to architect away the need to know specifics ahead of time. This
should work regardless of how those end up being implemented.
> In any case, again, I'm speaking specifically about the proposed design of
> `Comparable`. Do you think that there are meaningful generic algorithms to be
> written over localized string comparison and floating point comparison which
> are not possible today, which requires a redesign of `Comparable`?
sort(.ascending, using: metric) //This is defined on collection, but
works with case sensitive or insensitive, diacritics, IEEE ordering, etc… It
basically works for all options
It would also be fairly easy to combine with the new key paths to create
composable sort descriptors.
Note: If you look at my design again, you will notice it isn’t really a
redesign of Comparable. Instead, it mainly adds a new protocol defining a
comparison metric. Compare is left alone except for gaining a defaultMetric
property (which has a default implementation that calls ‘<‘ & ‘==‘). It also
gains a couple of convenience methods (and convenience operator '<=>’) which
can be added post-hoc. All Swift 3 code would continue working unaltered. It
simply gives the option of extra efficiency and flexibility when desired.
Thanks,
Jon
>
>>> On Apr 13, 2017, at 8:30 PM, Jonathan Hull via swift-evolution
>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> One more thought. I am generally in favor of this proposal, but since it
>>> is in the pitch stage, I wanted to offer an alternative approach that I
>>> didn’t see mentioned. Food for thought/discussion.
>>>
>>> What if, instead of repurposing comparable (and adding new functions for
>>> options like case insensitive compare), we define a comparison metric (with
>>> all of the options built in) and then use that to get our comparison
>>> result. Comparable things would have a default metric that uses ‘<‘ and
>>> ‘==‘ to provide a comparison result.
>>>
>>> The metric would have a method which takes two things and returns a
>>> ComparisonResult. The two things would usually be the same type, but
>>> wouldn’t necessarily have to be.
>>>
>>> As a convenience, any type could have a compared(to:, using:) method where
>>> you pass a comparison metric to the using parameter and receive a
>>> ComparisonResult. Comparable things could add a compared(with:) method and
>>> the spaceship operator <=>, which both use the default metric.
>>>
>>> Pros:
>>> • Would work without compiler alterations
>>> • You can create metrics that compare items of different types
>>> • Can setup the metric once for algorithms/comparisons with high setup cost
>>> • Things like 'compare(to: other, using: .caseInsensitiveComparison)' fall
>>> out of the design without having to create/learn various different versions
>>> of compare on different types.
>>> • Spaceship operator <=> for those who want it
>>> • In some cases, it can provide a much more efficient implementation based
>>> on underlying structure. For example, you can get a metric from
>>> String/Unicode which is optimized for a particular view of that string (say
>>> ASCII). Depending on the case, when one of the objects doesn’t match the
>>> optimized type, it can either convert or fallback to a more general
>>> algorithm… but it should provide a pretty big win when most of the objects
>>> have a known structure.
>>>
>>> Cons:
>>> • More protocols defined by the design
>>> • Requires an extra struct/class to implement in non-standard cases (e.g.
>>> case insensitive compare)
>>> • Probably something else I am missing
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Jon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Apr 13, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Ben Cohen via swift-evolution
>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Online copy here:
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/airspeedswift/swift-evolution/blob/fa007138a54895e94d22e053122ca24ffa0b2eeb/proposals/NNNN-ComparisonReform.md
>>>>
>>>> <https://github.com/airspeedswift/swift-evolution/blob/fa007138a54895e94d22e053122ca24ffa0b2eeb/proposals/NNNN-ComparisonReform.md>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
>
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
