It would fail if not all members were Equatable or Hashable. If it was automatic, you wouldn’t get any warning or sign at all. If you have to explicitly conform to the protocols, then your intention is clear, and if an automatic implementation cannot be made (because not all members were Equatable or Hashable), then you will get an error that you need to implement the protocol yourself like you do now (i.e. implement == and hashValue).
Patrick > On 28 May 2016, at 1:38 AM, Ricardo Parada <rpar...@mac.com> wrote: > > When would the automatic implementation fail? > > I see your point about adding to the compile size and I had previously > mentioned that. Usually in the apps I develop that is not a concern. However > I can see it could be a concern for apps that are more restrictive. If Swift > is to be used to build such apps too then I agree that not being automatic > would be important. It would have to be opt-in. I would be okay with that > solution. Hopefully most would make use of it in high-level frameworks. > > I guess similar to reflection and enabling dynamism. I look forward to > eventually being able to do key-value-coding in pure Swift and being able to > implement a framework similar to WebObjects which would require being able to > find properties by their name, getting and setting values. That would be > another example of opting in for a richer run-time. > > > On May 27, 2016, at 10:11 AM, Patrick Smith <pgwsm...@gmail.com > <mailto:pgwsm...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> If you have to specify Equatable / Hashable, then you can get an error if >> the automatic implementation failed, due to a member also not being >> Equatable/Hashable. If it’s automatic, then it will just quietly fail, >> making problems harder to know about and track. It will also always add to >> the compile size, even if you didn’t want the functionality. >> >> >>> On 27 May 2016, at 10:46 PM, Ricardo Parada <rpar...@mac.com >>> <mailto:rpar...@mac.com>> wrote: >>> >>> I agree, I think there is no need for deriving/synthesizes, but also, no >>> need to specify Equatable, Hashable. They should get the functionality by >>> default but allow for override and customization. >>> >>> >>> On May 26, 2016, at 11:02 PM, Patrick Smith <pgwsm...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:pgwsm...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>>> I don’t understand why you couldn’t conform to Equatable, and if it >>>> fulfils the requirements (all members are also Equatable), then its >>>> implementation is automatically created for you. That way you don’t need a >>>> new keyword. It’s like Objective-C’s property automatic synthesising that >>>> get used unless you implement ones yourself. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 27 May 2016, at 12:57 PM, Ricardo Parada via swift-evolution >>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I wonder if synthesizes would be a better choice than deriving. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On May 26, 2016, at 5:58 AM, Michael Peternell via swift-evolution >>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Can we just copy&paste the solution from Haskell instead of creating our >>>>>> own? It's just better in every aspect. Deriving `Equatable` and >>>>>> `Hashable` would become >>>>>> >>>>>> struct Polygon deriving Equatable, Hashable { >>>>>> ... >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> This has several advantages: >>>>>> - you don't have to guess wether `Equatable` or `Hashable` should be >>>>>> automatically derived or not. >>>>>> - Deriving becomes an explicit choice. >>>>>> - If you need a custom `Equatable` implementation (for whatever reason), >>>>>> you can still do it. >>>>>> - It doesn't break any code that is unaware of the change >>>>>> - It can be extended in future versions of Swift, without introducing >>>>>> any new incompatibilities. For example, `CustomStringConvertible` could >>>>>> be derived just as easily. >>>>>> - It is compatible with generics. E.g. `struct Shape<T> deriving >>>>>> Equatable` will make every `Shape<X>` equatable if `X` is equatable. But >>>>>> if `X` is not equatable, `Shape<X>` can be used as well. (Unless `X` is >>>>>> not used, in which case every `Shape<T>` would be equatable. Unless >>>>>> something in the definition of `Shape` makes deriving `Equatable` >>>>>> impossible => this produces an error.) >>>>>> - It is proven to work in production. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Michael >>>>>> >>>>>>> Am 26.05.2016 um 03:48 schrieb Mark Sands via swift-evolution >>>>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks so much for putting this together, Tony! Glad I was able to be >>>>>>> some inspiration. :^) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Tony Allevato via swift-evolution >>>>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >>>>>>> I was inspired to put together a draft proposal based on an older >>>>>>> discussion in the Universal Equality, Hashability, and Comparability >>>>>>> thread <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.swift.evolution/8919/ >>>>>>> <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.swift.evolution/8919/>> that >>>>>>> recently got necromanced (thanks Mark Sands!). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm guessing that this would be a significant enough change that it's >>>>>>> not possible for the Swift 3 timeline, but it's something that would >>>>>>> benefit enough people that I want to make sure the discussion stays >>>>>>> alive. If there are enough good feelings about it, I'll move it from my >>>>>>> gist into an actual proposal PR. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Automatically deriving Equatable andHashable for value types >>>>>>> >>>>>>> • Proposal: SE-0000 >>>>>>> • Author(s): Tony Allevato >>>>>>> • Status: Awaiting review >>>>>>> • Review manager: TBD >>>>>>> Introduction >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Value types are prevalent throughout the Swift language, and we >>>>>>> encourage developers to think in those terms when writing their own >>>>>>> types. Frequently, developers find themselves writing large amounts of >>>>>>> boilerplate code to support equatability and hashability of value >>>>>>> types. This proposal offers a way for the compiler to automatically >>>>>>> derive conformance toEquatable and Hashable to reduce this boilerplate, >>>>>>> in a subset of scenarios where generating the correct implementation is >>>>>>> likely to be possible. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Swift-evolution thread: Universal Equatability, Hashability, and >>>>>>> Comparability >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Motivation >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Building robust value types in Swift can involve writing significant >>>>>>> boilerplate code to support concepts of hashability and equatability. >>>>>>> Equality is pervasive across many value types, and for each one users >>>>>>> must implement the == operator such that it performs a fairly rote >>>>>>> memberwise equality test. As an example, an equality test for a struct >>>>>>> looks fairly uninteresting: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> func ==(lhs: Foo, rhs: Foo) -> Bool >>>>>>> { >>>>>>> >>>>>>> return lhs.property1 == rhs.property1 && >>>>>>> >>>>>>> lhs >>>>>>> .property2 == rhs.property2 && >>>>>>> >>>>>>> lhs >>>>>>> .property3 == rhs.property3 && >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What's worse is that this operator must be updated if any properties >>>>>>> are added, removed, or changed, and since it must be manually written, >>>>>>> it's possible to get it wrong, either by omission or typographical >>>>>>> error. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Likewise, hashability is necessary when one wishes to store a value >>>>>>> type in a Set or use one as a multi-valuedDictionary key. Writing >>>>>>> high-quality, well-distributed hash functions is not trivial so >>>>>>> developers may not put a great deal of thought into them – especially >>>>>>> as the number of properties increases – not realizing that their >>>>>>> performance could potentially suffer as a result. And as with equality, >>>>>>> writing it manually means there is the potential to get it wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In particular, the code that must be written to implement equality for >>>>>>> enums is quite verbose. One such real-world example (source): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> func ==(lhs: HandRank, rhs: HandRank) -> Bool >>>>>>> { >>>>>>> >>>>>>> switch >>>>>>> (lhs, rhs) { >>>>>>> >>>>>>> case (.straightFlush(let lRank, let lSuit), .straightFlush(let rRank , >>>>>>> let >>>>>>> rSuit)): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> return lRank == rRank && lSuit == >>>>>>> rSuit >>>>>>> >>>>>>> case (.fourOfAKind(four: let lFour), .fourOfAKind(four: let >>>>>>> rFour)): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> return lFour == >>>>>>> rFour >>>>>>> >>>>>>> case (.fullHouse(three: let lThree), .fullHouse(three: let >>>>>>> rThree)): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> return lThree == >>>>>>> rThree >>>>>>> >>>>>>> case (.flush(let lRank, let lSuit), .flush(let rRank, let >>>>>>> rSuit)): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> return lSuit == rSuit && lRank == >>>>>>> rRank >>>>>>> >>>>>>> case (.straight(high: let lRank), .straight(high: let >>>>>>> rRank)): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> return lRank == >>>>>>> rRank >>>>>>> >>>>>>> case (.threeOfAKind(three: let lRank), .threeOfAKind(three: let >>>>>>> rRank)): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> return lRank == >>>>>>> rRank >>>>>>> >>>>>>> case (.twoPair(high: let lHigh, low: let lLow, highCard: let >>>>>>> lCard), >>>>>>> >>>>>>> .twoPair(high: let rHigh, low: let rLow, highCard: let >>>>>>> rCard)): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> return lHigh == rHigh && lLow == rLow && lCard == >>>>>>> rCard >>>>>>> >>>>>>> case (.onePair(let lPairRank, card1: let lCard1, card2: let lCard2, >>>>>>> card3: let >>>>>>> lCard3), >>>>>>> >>>>>>> .onePair(let rPairRank, card1: let rCard1, card2: let rCard2, card3: let >>>>>>> rCard3)): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> return lPairRank == rPairRank && lCard1 == rCard1 && lCard2 == rCard2 >>>>>>> && lCard3 == >>>>>>> rCard3 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> case (.highCard(let lCard), .highCard(let >>>>>>> rCard)): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> return lCard == >>>>>>> rCard >>>>>>> >>>>>>> default >>>>>>> : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> return false >>>>>>> >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Crafting a high-quality hash function for this enum would be similarly >>>>>>> inconvenient to write, involving another large switchstatement. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Swift already provides implicit protocol conformance in some cases; >>>>>>> notably, enums with raw values conform toRawRepresentable, Equatable, >>>>>>> and Hashable without the user explicitly declaring them: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> enum Foo: Int >>>>>>> { >>>>>>> >>>>>>> case one = 1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> case two = 2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> let x = (Foo.one == Foo.two) // works >>>>>>> let y = Foo.one.hashValue // also works >>>>>>> let z = Foo.one.rawValue // also also works >>>>>>> Since there is precedent for this in Swift, we propose extending this >>>>>>> support to more value types. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Proposed solution >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We propose that a value type be Equatable/Hashable if all of its >>>>>>> members are Equatable/Hashable, with the result for the outer type >>>>>>> being composed from its members. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Specifically, we propose the following rules for deriving Equatable: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> • A struct implicitly conforms to Equatable if all of its fields are >>>>>>> of types that conform to Equatable – either explicitly, or implicitly >>>>>>> by the application of these rules. The compiler will generate an >>>>>>> implementation of ==(lhs: T, rhs: T)that returns true if and only if >>>>>>> lhs.x == rhs.x for all fields x in T. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> • An enum implicitly conforms to Equatable if all of its associated >>>>>>> values across all of its cases are of types that conform to Equatable – >>>>>>> either explicitly, or implicitly by the application of these rules. The >>>>>>> compiler will generate an implementation of ==(lhs: T, rhs: T) that >>>>>>> returns true if and only if lhs and rhs are the same case and have >>>>>>> payloads that are memberwise-equal. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Likewise, we propose the following rules for deriving Hashable: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> • A struct implicitly conforms to Hashable if all of its fields are >>>>>>> of types that conform to Hashable – either explicitly, or implicitly by >>>>>>> the application of these rules. The compiler will generate an >>>>>>> implementation of hashValue that uses a pre-defined hash function† to >>>>>>> compute the hash value of the struct from the hash values of its >>>>>>> members. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since order of the terms affects the hash value computation, we >>>>>>> recommend ordering the terms in member definition order. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> • An enum implicitly conforms to Hashable if all of its associated >>>>>>> values across all of its cases are of types that conform to Hashable – >>>>>>> either explicitly, or implicitly by the application of these rules. The >>>>>>> compiler will generate an implementation of hashValue that uses a >>>>>>> pre-defined hash function† to compute the hash value of an enum value >>>>>>> by using the case's ordinal (i.e., definition order) followed by the >>>>>>> hash values of its associated values as its terms, also in definition >>>>>>> order. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> † We leave the exact definition of the hash function unspecified here; >>>>>>> a multiplicative hash function such as Kernighan and Ritchie or >>>>>>> Bernstein is easy to implement, but we do not rule out other >>>>>>> possibilities. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Overriding defaults >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Any user-provided implementations of == or hashValue should override >>>>>>> the default implementations that would be provided by the compiler. >>>>>>> This is already possible today with raw-value enums so the same >>>>>>> behavior should be extended to other value types that are made to >>>>>>> implicitly conform to these protocols. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Open questions >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Omission of fields from generated computations >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Should it be possible to easily omit certain properties from >>>>>>> automatically generated equality tests or hash value computation? This >>>>>>> could be valuable, for example, if a property is merely used as an >>>>>>> internal cache and does not actually contribute to the "value" of the >>>>>>> instance. Under the rules above, if this cached value was equatable, a >>>>>>> user would have to override == and hashValue and provide their own >>>>>>> implementations to ignore it. If there is significant evidence that >>>>>>> this pattern is common and useful, we could consider adding a custom >>>>>>> attribute, such as @transient, that would omit the property from the >>>>>>> generated computations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Explicit or implicit derivation >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As with raw-value enums today, should the derived conformance be >>>>>>> completely explicit, or should users have to explicitly list >>>>>>> conformance with Equatable and Hashable in order for the compiler to >>>>>>> generate the derived implementation? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Impact on existing code >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This change will have no impact on existing code because it is purely >>>>>>> additive. Value types that already provide custom implementations of == >>>>>>> or hashValue but satisfy the rules above would keep the custom >>>>>>> implementation because it would override the compiler-provided default. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alternatives considered >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The original discussion thread also included Comparable as a candidate >>>>>>> for automatic generation. Unlike equatability and hashability, however, >>>>>>> comparability requires an ordering among the members being compared. >>>>>>> Automatically using the definition order here might be too surprising >>>>>>> for users, but worse, it also means that reordering properties in the >>>>>>> source code changes the code's behavior at runtime. (This is true for >>>>>>> hashability as well if a multiplicative hash function is used, but hash >>>>>>> values are not intended to be persistent and reordering the terms does >>>>>>> not produce a significant behavioral change.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Acknowledgments >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks to Joe Groff for spinning off the original discussion thread, >>>>>>> Jose Cheyo Jimenez for providing great real-world examples of >>>>>>> boilerplate needed to support equatability for some value types, and to >>>>>>> Mark Sands for necromancing the swift-evolution thread that convinced >>>>>>> me to write this up. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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 <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
