On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:49 Jonathan Hull <jh...@gbis.com> wrote: > > On Oct 16, 2017, at 7:20 AM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > To start with, the one you gave as an example at the beginning of this >> discussion: Two sets with identical elements which have different internal >> storage and thus give different orderings as sequences. You yourself have >> argued that the confusion around this is enough of a problem that we need >> to make a source-breaking change (renaming it) to warn people that the >> results of the ‘elementsEqual’ algorithm are undefined for sets and >> dictionaries. >> > > No, I am arguing that the confusion about ‘elementsEqual’ is foremost a > problem with its name; the result of this operation is not at all undefined > for two sets but actually clearly defined: it returns true if two sets have > the same elements in the same iteration order, which is a publicly > observable behavior of sets (likewise dictionaries). > > > But that iteration order is undefined and could easily change due to > changes in the private/internal structure of sets/dictionaries. Algorithms > that rely on that “publicly observable behavior” (i.e. leaking of > internals) will suddenly break. >
And an algorithm in which such “sudden breakage” would occur is...? You keep claiming that this bug is a feature because it is the current > behavior… but that is tautological reasoning. > > Thanks, > Jon >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
