> On 2016-07-12, at 20:26, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > The review of "SE-0121: Remove `Optional` Comparison Operators" begins now > and runs through July 19. The proposal is available here: > > > https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0121-remove-optional-comparison-operators.md > > <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0121-remove-optional-comparison-operators.md>
> * What is your evaluation of the proposal? If SE-0123 is accepted, then I don’t mind keeping optional comparisons. But I also wouldn’t protest much against removing them until Optional can be made to conditionally conform to Comparable. If SE-0123 is rejected, then definitely +1; I’ve been bitten several times by accidentally using these while handling the return value of Collection’s index(of:). I don’t remember ever intentionally using these overloads, except ironically: https://twitter.com/lorentey/status/657254631660236800 <https://twitter.com/lorentey/status/657254631660236800> Note though that I often find myself wishing for Optional to implement Comparable. Writing comparison methods for little one-off Comparable structs that wrap Optionals gets tiring after a while. (As the proposal states, the existing overloads fall far short of achieving conditional conformance. I guess I could use these operators in the implementation of my wrapper structs, but I forget they exist.) > * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change > to Swift? This depends on the outcome of SE-0123, which aims to eliminate the pitfall that makes these overloads dangerous. > * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift? I think Optional should implement Comparable whenever the wrapped type does. The proposal is a distinct step back from this. On the other hand, if SE-0123 fails, I think it’s worth giving up on this goal in favor of removing a common pitfall. > * If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, > how do you feel that this proposal compares to those? Languages with implicit optionals do allow comparisons. E.g., "NSNotFound < 42" produces no compiler diagnostic. C++ has recently gained std::optional, which does provide </<=/>/>= operators, with the same semantics as Swift, including support for comparing optionals with non-optionals. It also has implicit promotion of values to optionals. http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3672.html#rationale.relops <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3672.html#rationale.relops> Rust’s std::Option<T> enum implements the std::cmp::Ord trait when T does. So Rust’s optionals are (conditionally) comparable. I believe Rust provides no implicit coercion from T to std::Option<T>, but to be honest I’m not entirely sure. https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/option/enum.Option.html#method.cmp <https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/option/enum.Option.html#method.cmp> So the few languages I know that support explicit optionals also make them comparable. > * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick > reading, or an in-depth study? Quick reading and minimal research. -- Karoly @lorentey
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
