> My hunch is that structs and enums where such volatile data exists are the
> exception, not the norm, when it comes to considering equality. This
> proposal is very much intended to be useful syntactic sugar for the common
> case while not preventing any existing behavior (providing your own
> implementation) and alluding to future directions where the behavior can be
> extended to other use cases.
>

I have similar concerns to Haravikk and I also understand the reasoning you
outline.

Reviewing code of ours and thinking back in time to prior (pre-swift
projects) I currently think that automatic synthesis by simple statement of
adopting Equat/Hashable would only be possible for the simplest of data
structs and classes. It is often that more (slightly) complex structs and
classes have various bookkeeping, metadata, and/or caching properties that
should not be considered in the synthesized code however theses object are
maintained in data structures that depend on Equat/Hashable conformance. In
other words I would have to write an implementation myself (despite a
synthesized version could be done if a subset of properties could be
excluded) or possibly I would adopt one of those protocols and mistakenly
forget to write my own implementation because automatic synthesis kicks in
causing a lurking problem (so hopefully be quickly discovered).

Also for data structs/classes built to deal with data exchange, say with a
server API using JSON, the resulting data objects that leverage the new
codable stuff in Swift 4 will almost universally have things that would
allow automatic synthesis of Equat/Hashable however equally universally the
equality of two objects decoded would depend on a small subset of the
properties contained in the object (say a server id and some number of
additional scoping ids). So I doubt that simply using something that would
opt-out elements from automatic coding would map directly to opt-out of
automatic compatibility, it wouldn't be a 1:1 mapping... likely seldom
would it be in my experience.

So at this time this feature would likely be of little utility to me in my
code.

With all that said... I want this feature +1 but with some futur things
being omitted I won't gain much near term benefit form it.

-Shawn
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Reply via email to