Sent from my iPad
> On Apr 22, 2017, at 4:53 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Dave Abrahams <dabrah...@apple.com> wrote:
>>
>> on Tue Apr 18 2017, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi.wu-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Ben Cohen via swift-evolution <
>> > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> On Apr 17, 2017, at 9:40 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <
>> >> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Apr 17, 2017, at 9:07 AM, Joe Groff via swift-evolution <
>> >> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Apr 15, 2017, at 9:49 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <
>> >> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> For example, I expect `XCTAssertEqual<T : FloatingPoint>(_:_:)` to be
>> >> vended as part of XCTest, in order to make sure that
>> >> `XCTAssertEqual(resultOfComputation,
>> >> Double.nan)` always fails.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Unit tests strike me as an example of where you really *don't* want level
>> >> 1 comparison semantics. If I'm testing the output of an FP operation, I
>> >> want to be able to test that it produces nan when I expect it to, or that
>> >> it produces the right zero.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I find it very concerning that == will have different results based on
>> >> concrete vs generic type parameters. This can only lead to significant
>> >> confusion down the road. I’m highly concerned about situations where
>> >> taking a concrete algorithm and generalizing it (with generics) will
>> >> change
>> >> its behavior.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> It is already the case that you can start with a concrete algorithm,
>> >> generalize it, and get confusing results – just with a different starting
>> >> point. If you start with a concrete algorithm on Int, then generalize it
>> >> to
>> >> all Equatable types, then your algorithm will have unexpected behavior for
>> >> floats, because these standard library types fail to follow the rules
>> >> explicitly laid out for conforming to Equatable.
>> >>
>> >> This is bad. Developers need to be able to rely on those rules. The
>> >> standard library certainly does:
>> >>
>> >> let a: [Double] = [(0/0)]
>> >> var b = a
>> >>
>> >> // true, because fast path buffer pointer comparison:
>> >> a == b
>> >>
>> >> b.reserveCapacity(10) // force a reallocation
>> >>
>> >> // now false, because memberwise comparison and nan != nan,
>> >> // violating the reflexivity requirement of Equatable:
>> >> a == b
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Maybe we could go through and special-case all the places in the standard
>> >> library that rely on this, accounting for the floating point behavior
>> >> (possibly reducing performance as a result). But we shouldn't expect users
>> >> to.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I was not thinking about the issue illustrated above, but this is
>> > definitely problematic to me.
>> >
>> > To be clear, this proposal promises that `[0 / 0 as Double]` will be made
>> > to compare unequal with itself, yes?
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> As you know, equality of arrays is implemented generically and based on
>> the equatable conformance of their elements. Therefore, two arrays of
>> equatable elements are equal iff the conforming implementation of
>> Equatable's == is true for all elements.
>>
>> > It is very clear that here we are working with a concrete FP type and
>> > not in a generic context, and thus all IEEE FP behavior should apply.
>>
>> I suppose that's one interpretation, but it's not the right one.
>>
>> If this were C++, it would be different, because of the way template
>> instantiation works: in a generic context like the == of Array, the
>> compiler would look up the syntactically-available == for the elements
>> and use that. But Swift is not like that; static lookup is done at the
>> point where Array's == is compiled, and it only finds the == that's
>> supplied by the Element's Equatable conformance.
>>
>> This may sound like an argument based on implementation details of the
>> language, and to some extent it is. But that is also the fundamental
>> nature of the Swift language (and one for which we get many benefits),
>> and it is hopeless to paper over it. For example, I can claim that all
>> doubles are equal to one another:
>>
>> 9> func == (lhs: Double, rhs: Double) -> Bool { return true }
>> 10> 4.0 == 1.0
>> $R2: Bool = true
>> 11> [4.0] == [1.0] // so the arrays should be equal too!
>> $R3: Bool = false
>>
>> Another way to look at this is that Array is not a numeric vector, and
>> won't be one no matter what you do ([1.0] + [2.0] => [1.0, 2.0]). So it
>> would be wrong for you to expect it to reflect the numeric properties of
>> its elements.
>
> I understand that's how the generic Array<T> would work, but the proposal as
> written promises FP-aware versions of these functions. That is to say, I
> would expect the standard library to supply an alternative implementation of
> equality for Array<T where T : FloatingPoint>.
Are you suggesting it implies that Array's Equatable conformance is implemented
differently when T: FloatingPoint? Is it even possible to provide such an
implementation given the current restriction that bans overlapping conformance?
(If there is a technique for implementing something like this in Swift 4 I
would love to learn it)
>
>> >> This is a bump in the rug – push it down in one place, it pops up in
>> >> another. I feel like this proposal at least moves the bump to where fewer
>> >> people will trip over it. I think it highly likely that the intersection
>> >> of
>> >> developers who understand enough about floating point to write truly
>> >> correct concrete code, but won’t know about or discover the documented
>> >> difference in generic code, is far smaller than the set of people who hit
>> >> problems with the existing behavior.
>> >>
>> >
>> > So, to extend this analogy, I'd rather say that the bump is not in the rug
>> > [Comparable] but rather in a section of the floor [FP NaN]. The rug might
>> > overlie the bump, but the bump will always be there and people will find it
>> > as they walk even if they don't immediately see it.
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>> > If we don't want people to trip over the bump while walking on the
>> > rug, one very good alternative, IMHO, is to shape the rug so that it
>> > doesn't cover the bump.
>>
>> At what cost?
>>
>> More specifically: why is it the right behavior, for our audience, to
>> trap when Equatable comparison happens to encounter NaN? Will this not
>> simply "crash" programs in the field that otherwise would have "just
>> worked?"
>
> No, as I propose it, programs in the field would be automatically migrated to
> an alternative set of comparison operators `&==`, `&<`, etc. that would work
> exactly as `==`, `<`, etc. do today. I would quibble with the notion that all
> such generic algorithms currently "just work," but the result is that they
> would behave exactly as they do today and therefore would at least be no more
> broken.
>
> Standard library changes to `sort` and other functions will make them "just
> work" with no distinguishable difference to the end user as compared to this
> proposal here. It would be an improvement over how the algorithms work today
> with NaN.
>
> The major difference to the end user between what I propose and this proposal
> here will surface when _new_ code is written that uses `==` in the generic
> context, when working with types whose values may compare unordered. Since I
> propose `<=>` to return a value of type `Comparison?`, using the revised
> operator `==` is an assertion that the result of comparison is not unordered.
> A user is welcome to use `&==` or a custom predicate if that is not their
> intention.
>
>> > My purpose in exploring an alternative design is to see if it would be
>> > feasible for non-FP-aware comparison operators to refuse to compare NaN,
>> > rather than giving different answers depending on context.
>>
>> So... to be clear, this is still different behavior based on context.
>> Is this not just as confusing a result?
>>
>> let nan = 0.0 / 0.0
>> print(nan == nan) // false
>> print([nan] == [nan]) // trap
>>
>> > I now strongly believe that this may make for a design simultaneously
>> > _less_ complex *and* _more_ comprehensive (as measured by the
>> > flatness-of-rug metric).
>>
>> I'm certainly willing to discuss it, but so far it doesn't seem like
>> you've been willing to answer the central questions above.
>
> Clearly, I'm not understanding the central questions. Which ones have I left
> unanswered?
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
