> On Oct 13, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 09:02 Adam Kemp <adam.k...@apple.com> wrote:
>> Right, but if you do look it up you get a bunch of things talking about
>> sorting words.
>
> And that’s a perfect description of the behavior. It’s a lexicographical
> comparison operation!
>
>> How about pairwiseEqual?
>
> A lexicographical comparison compares not merely pairwise, but in order from
> the first item onwards, and stops at the first unequal pair. Proceeding in
> order is key information, while stopping early on false is a nice-to-have.
> There’s already a word for this, and it’s “lexicographical.” And the analogy
> is universally understood: everyone has used a dictionary or index.
I think the argument is that in this case, we're not performing an ordering,
and we aren't looking at the elements using an ordered comparison. This
stretches the understood use of "lexicographic", so while I think it's probably
okay, it isn't a slam dunk. To me, the biggest benefit of
lexicographicallyMatches is that it's obtuse, so most people will need to look
at the docs to get what it actually does, which we can improve to call out the
unexpected behavior with Set and Dictionary.
Nate
>>
>> --
>> Adam Kemp
>>
>>> On Oct 13, 2017, at 5:17 AM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> “Lexicographical comparison” is a pretty standard term, and easy to Google.
>>> We didn’t make it up for Swift :)
>>>
>>> Since Swift names this protocol Sequence, something named
>>> “Sequence.sequenceEqual” cannot distinguish this method from ==.
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 01:28 Adam Kemp <adam.k...@apple.com> wrote:
>>>> I agree that the proposed name is a poor choice. If we just focus on the
>>>> naming part, there is precedent in other languages for the name
>>>> “sequenceEqual”. I think that name makes it a bit clearer that the result
>>>> is whether the sequences match pair wise rather than whether they have the
>>>> same elements irrespective of order. I don’t think it entirely solves the
>>>> problem, but I like it a lot better than the proposed name.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Adam Kemp
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 12, 2017, at 9:57 PM, Kevin Nattinger via swift-evolution
>>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> –∞
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. I strongly object to the proposed name. It doesn't make it more clear
>>>>> to me what the method does, and is misleading at best. Among other
>>>>> issues, "lexicographical" is defined as alphabet order, and (1) this
>>>>> method applies to objects that are not Strings, and (2) this method's
>>>>> behavior isn't any more well-defined for Strings, so that name is even
>>>>> more of a lie than the original.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. This is really just a symptom of a bigger problem. The fact that two
>>>>> Sets can compare equal and yet return different results for that method
>>>>> (among too many others) is logically inconsistent and points to a much
>>>>> deeper issue with Set and Sequence. It is probably about 3 releases too
>>>>> late to get this straightened out properly, but I'll outline the real
>>>>> issue in case someone has an idea for fixing it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The root of the problem is that Set conforms to Sequence, but Sequence
>>>>> doesn't require a well-defined order. Since Set doesn't have a
>>>>> well-defined order, a significant portion of its interface is
>>>>> unspecified. The methods are implemented because they have to be, but
>>>>> they doesn't have well-defined or necessarily consistent results.
>>>>>
>>>>> A sequence is, by definition, ordered. That is reflected in the fact that
>>>>> over half the methods in the main Sequence definition* make no sense and
>>>>> are not well-defined unless there is a well-defined order to the sequence
>>>>> itself. What does it even mean to `dropFirst()` in a Set? The fact that
>>>>> two objects that compare equal can give different results for a 100%
>>>>> deterministic function is illogical, nonsensical, and dangerous.
>>>>>
>>>>> * 7/12 by my count, ignoring `_*` funcs but including the `var`
>>>>>
>>>>> The current contents of Sequence can be cleanly divided into two groups;
>>>>> those that return SubSequence imply a specific ordering, and the rest do
>>>>> not.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think those should be/should have been two separate protocols:
>>>>>
>>>>> public protocol Iterable {
>>>>> associatedtype Iterator: IteratorProtocol
>>>>> func map<T>(...) -> [T] // Iterable where .Iterator.Element == T
>>>>> func filter(...) -> [Iterator.Element] // Iterable where
>>>>> .Iterator.Element == Self.Iterator.Element
>>>>> func forEach(...)
>>>>> func makeIterator() -> Iterator
>>>>> var underestimatedCount: Int { get }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> public protocol Sequence: Iterable { // Maybe OrderedSequence just to
>>>>> make the well-defined-order requirement explicit
>>>>> associatedtype SubSequence
>>>>> func dropFirst(...) -> SubSequence // Sequence where
>>>>> .Iterator.Element == Self.Iterator.Element
>>>>> func dropLast(...) -> SubSequence // " "
>>>>> func drop(while...) -> SubSequence // " "
>>>>> func prefix(...) -> SubSequence // " "
>>>>> func prefix(while...) -> SubSequence // " "
>>>>> func suffix(...) -> SubSequence // " "
>>>>> func split(...where...) -> [SubSequence] // Iterable where
>>>>> .Iterator.Element == (Sequence where .Iterator.Element ==
>>>>> Self.Iterator.Element)
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> (The comments, of course, would be more sensible types once the ideas can
>>>>> actually be expressed in Swift)
>>>>>
>>>>> Then unordered collections (Set and Dictionary) would just conform to
>>>>> Iterable and not Sequence, so ALL the methods on those classes would make
>>>>> logical sense and have well-defined behavior; no change would be needed
>>>>> for ordered collections.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, the practical matter. If this were Swift 1->2 or 2->3, I doubt there
>>>>> would be a significant issue with actually making this change.
>>>>> Unfortunately, we're well beyond that and making a change this deep is an
>>>>> enormous deal. So I see two ways forward.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. We could go ahead and make this separation. Although it's a
>>>>> potentially large breaking change, I would argue that because the methods
>>>>> are ill-defined anyway, the breakage is justified and a net benefit.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. We could try and think of a way to make the distinction between
>>>>> ordered and unordered "sequences" in a less-breaking manner.
>>>>> Unfortunately, I don't have a good suggestion for this, but if anyone has
>>>>> ideas, I'm all ears. Or eyes, as the case may be.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 12, 2017, at 4:24 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution
>>>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rename Sequence.elementsEqual
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Proposal: SE-NNNN
>>>>>> Authors: Xiaodi Wu
>>>>>> Review Manager: TBD
>>>>>> Status: Awaiting review
>>>>>> Introduction
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The current behavior of Sequence.elementsEqual is potentially confusing
>>>>>> to users given its name. Having surveyed the alternative solutions to
>>>>>> this problem, it is proposed that the method be renamed to
>>>>>> Sequence.lexicographicallyEquals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
