> On Oct 17, 2017, at 11:46 AM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 12:54 Jonathan Hull <jh...@gbis.com > <mailto:jh...@gbis.com>> wrote: >> On Oct 17, 2017, at 9:34 AM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com >> <mailto:xiaodi...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 09:42 Jonathan Hull <jh...@gbis.com >> <mailto:jh...@gbis.com>> wrote: >>> On Oct 17, 2017, at 5:44 AM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:xiaodi...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 00:56 Thorsten Seitz <tseit...@icloud.com >>> <mailto:tseit...@icloud.com>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Am 17.10.2017 um 00:13 schrieb Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:xiaodi...@gmail.com>>: >>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 14:21 Thorsten Seitz <tseit...@icloud.com >>>> <mailto:tseit...@icloud.com>> wrote: >>>>> Am 16.10.2017 um 16:20 schrieb Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution >>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>>: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 05:48 Jonathan Hull <jh...@gbis.com >>>>> <mailto:jh...@gbis.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 15, 2017, at 9:58 PM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com >>>>>> <mailto:xiaodi...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Jonathan Hull <jh...@gbis.com >>>>>> <mailto:jh...@gbis.com>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Oct 14, 2017, at 10:48 PM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com >>>>>>> <mailto:xiaodi...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> That ordering can be arbitrary, but it shouldn’t leak internal >>>>>>>>> representation such that the method used to create identical things >>>>>>>>> affects the outcome of generic methods because of differences in >>>>>>>>> internal representation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It would be better to say that the iteration order is well-defined. >>>>>>>>>> That will almost always mean documented, and usually predictable >>>>>>>>>> though obviously e.g. RNGs and iterating in random order will not be >>>>>>>>>> predictable by design. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That's actually more semantically constrained than what Swift calls >>>>>>>>>>> a `Collection` (which requires conforming types to be multi-pass >>>>>>>>>>> and(?) finite). By contrast, Swift's `SpongeBob` protocol >>>>>>>>>>> explicitly permits conforming single-pass, infinite, and/or >>>>>>>>>>> unordered types. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think you’re talking about Sequence here, I’ve lost track of your >>>>>>>>>> nonsense by now. Yes, the current Swift protocol named Sequence >>>>>>>>>> allows unordered types. You seem to keep asserting that but not >>>>>>>>>> actually addressing my argument, which is that allowing Sequences to >>>>>>>>>> be unordered with the current API is undesired and actively harmful, >>>>>>>>>> and should therefore be changed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What is harmful about it? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> After thinking about it, I think the harmful bit is that unordered >>>>>>>>> sequences are leaking internal representation (In your example, this >>>>>>>>> is causing people to be surprised when two sets with identical >>>>>>>>> elements are generating different sequences/orderings based on how >>>>>>>>> they were created). You are correct when you say that this problem >>>>>>>>> is even true for for-in. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would not say it is a problem. Rather, by definition, iteration >>>>>>>>> involves retrieving one element after another; if you're allowed to >>>>>>>>> do that with Set, then the elements of a Set are observably ordered >>>>>>>>> in some way. Since it's not an OrderedSet--i.e., order doesn't >>>>>>>>> matter--then the only sensible conclusion is that the order of >>>>>>>>> elements obtained in a for...in loop must be arbitrary. If you think >>>>>>>>> this is harmful, then you must believe that one should be prohibited >>>>>>>>> from iterating over an instance of Set. Otherwise, Set is inescapably >>>>>>>>> a Sequence by the Swift definition of Sequence. All extension methods >>>>>>>>> on Sequence like drop(while:) are really just conveniences for common >>>>>>>>> things that you can do with iterated access; to my mind, they're >>>>>>>>> essentially just alternative ways of spelling various for...in loops. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think an argument could be made that you shouldn’t be able to >>>>>>>> iterate over a set without first defining an ordering on it (even if >>>>>>>> that ordering is somewhat arbitrary). Maybe we have something like a >>>>>>>> “Sequenc(e)able” protocol which defines things which can be turned >>>>>>>> into a sequence when combined with some sort of ordering. One >>>>>>>> possible ordering could be the internal representation (At least in >>>>>>>> that case we are calling it out specifically). If I had to say >>>>>>>> “setA.arbitraryOrder.elementsEqual(setB.arbitraryOrder)” I would >>>>>>>> definitely be less surprised when it returns false even though setA == >>>>>>>> setB. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, that's a totally different direction, then; you're arguing that >>>>>>>> `Set` and `Dictionary` should not conform to `Sequence` altogether. >>>>>>>> That's fine (it's also a direction that some of us explored off-list a >>>>>>>> while ago), but at this point in Swift's evolution, realistically, >>>>>>>> it's not within the realm of possible changes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am actually suggesting something slightly different. Basically, Set >>>>>>> and Dictionary’s conformance to Collection would have a different >>>>>>> implementation. They would conform to another protocol declaring that >>>>>>> they are unordered. That protocol would fill in part of the conformance >>>>>>> to sequence/collection using a default ordering, which is mostly >>>>>>> arbitrary, but guaranteed to produce the same ordering for the same >>>>>>> list of elements (even across collection types). This would be safer, >>>>>>> but a tiny bit slower than what we have now (We could also potentially >>>>>>> develop a way for collections like set to amortize the cost). For those >>>>>>> who need to recover speed, the new protocol would also define a >>>>>>> property which quickly returns a sequence/iterator using the internal >>>>>>> ordering (I arbitrarily called it .arbitraryOrder). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I believe it would not be source breaking. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is indeed something slightly different. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In an ideal world--and my initial understanding of what you were >>>>>>> suggesting--Set and Dictionary would each have a member like >>>>>>> `collection`, which would expose the underlying data as a >>>>>>> `SetCollection` or `DictionaryCollection` that in turn would conform to >>>>>>> `Collection`; meanwhile, Set and Dictionary themselves would not offer >>>>>>> methods such as `prefix`, or indexing by subscript, which are not >>>>>>> compatible with being unordered. For those who want a particular >>>>>>> ordering, there'd be something like `collection(ordered >>>>>>> areInIncreasingOrder: (T, T) -> Bool) -> {Set|Dictionary}Collection`. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What you suggest here instead would be minimally source-breaking. >>>>>>> However, I'm unsure of where these guarantees provide benefit to >>>>>>> justify the performance cost. Certainly not for `first` or >>>>>>> `dropFirst(_:)`, which still yields an arbitrary result which doesn't >>>>>>> make sense for something _unordered_. We *could* have an underscored >>>>>>> customization point named something like `_customOrderingPass` that is >>>>>>> only invoked from `elementsEqual` or other such methods to >>>>>>> pre-rearrange the internal ordering of unordered collections in some >>>>>>> deterministic way before comparison. Is that what you have in mind? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Something like that. Whatever we do, there will be a tradeoff between >>>>>> speed, correctness, and ergonomics. >>>>>> >>>>>> My suggestion trades speed for correctness, and provides a way to >>>>>> recover speed through additional typing (which is slightly less >>>>>> ergonomic). >>>>>> >>>>>> You haven't convinced me that this is at all improved in "correctness." >>>>>> It trades one arbitrary iteration order for another on a type that tries >>>>>> to model an unordered collection. >>>>>> >>>>>> We could do something like you suggest. I don’t think the method would >>>>>> need to be underscored… the ordering pass could just be a method on the >>>>>> protocol which defines it as unordered. Then we could provide a special >>>>>> conformance for things where order really matters based on adherence to >>>>>> that protocol. That might be an acceptable tradeoff. It would give us >>>>>> speed at the cost of having the correct implementation being less >>>>>> ergonomic and more error prone (you have to remember to check that it is >>>>>> unordered and call the ordering method when it mattered). >>>>>> >>>>>> I’d still be a bit worried that people would make incorrect generic >>>>>> algorithms based on expecting an order from unordered things, but at >>>>>> least it would be possible for them check and handle it correctly. I >>>>>> think I could get behind that tradeoff/compromise, given where we are in >>>>>> the swift process and Swift's obsession with speed (though I still >>>>>> slightly prefer the safer default). At least the standard library would >>>>>> handle all the things correctly, and that is what will affect the >>>>>> majority of programmers. >>>>>> >>>>>> What is an example of such an "incorrect" generic algorithm that would >>>>>> be made correct by such a scheme? >>>>> >>>>> 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 it is a behavior which has absolutely no meaning at all because the >>>> order does not depend on the elements of the set but on the history of how >>>> the set has been reached its current state. >>>> So why should I ever use this method on a set? >>>> What is the use case? >>>> >>>> One example: you can use it to check an instance of Set<Float> to >>>> determine if it has a NaN value. (The “obvious” way of doing it is not >>>> guaranteed to work since NaN != NaN.) >>> >>> How would I do that? I'd rather expect to use a property isNaN on Float to >>> do that. >>> >>> set.elementsEqual(set) >> >> I see why that would work (thanks to Set being a collection vs a sequence), >> but it still feels like a hack. I definitely wouldn’t want to be >> maintaining code with that in it. Especially when compared to something like: >> >> set.contains(where: {$0.isNaN}) >> >> The purpose of protocols is to enable useful generic code. You cannot use >> isNaN for code that works on generic Collection, or for that matter, even >> code that works on Set where Element : Numeric. >> >> Much generic code (for example, generic sorting) easily blows up when >> encountering NaN. If you want an algorithm that is robust enough to handle >> (or at least reject) that scenario, then you will need to check for it. It >> is not a “hack” but a very common and accepted way of determining the >> presence of NaN. > > Just because a hack is commonly accepted or common doesn’t mean it isn’t a > hack. > > It’s not a “hack.” NaN is required by IEEE fiat not to be equivalent to > itself. Asking whether a value is reflexively equivalent to itself is > guaranteed to be sufficient to detect the presence of NaN in all > IEEE-compliant contexts, which is to say all past, present, and future > versions of Swift.
The problem isn’t Nan != NaN, but the fact that you are comparing T != T (where T may not even be a floating point thing) and assuming it means NaN. > Using elementsEqual in this way (in a generic context which may or may not > involve floats) is definitely a hack, and is likely to bite you at some point. > > How is it definitely a hack when it is blessed by IEEE, and how can it bite > me? Because it may return false for reasons other than NaN. >>>>> I don’t see why a non-source-breaking change is suddenly off-limits. >>>>> >>>>> But more than that, any generic algorithm which is assuming that the >>>>> sequence is coming from an ordered source (i.e. many things using >>>>> first/last). Some uses of first are ok because the programmer actually >>>>> means ‘any’, but anywhere where they actually mean first/last may be >>>>> problematic. >>>>> >>>>> Such as...? >>>>> >>>>> Currently, there is no way to test for ordered-ness, so there is no way >>>>> for even a careful programmer to mitigate this problem. By adding a >>>>> protocol which states that something is unordered, we can either branch >>>>> on it, or create a separate version of an algorithm for things which >>>>> conform. >>>>> >>>>> It is clearly the case that Swift’s protocol hierarchy fits sets and >>>>> collections imperfectly; however, it is in the nature of modeling that >>>>> imperfections are present. The question is not whether it is possible to >>>>> incur performance, API surface area, and other trade-offs to make the >>>>> model more faithful, but rather whether this usefully solves any problem. >>>>> What is the problem being mitigated? As I write above, Swift’s Set and >>>>> Dictionary types meet the semantic requirements for Collection and >>>>> moonlight as ordered collections. What is a generic algorithm on an >>>>> ordered collection that is “not OK” for Set and Dictionary? >>>>> (“elementsEqual”, as I’ve said, is not such an example.) >>>> >>>> On the contrary, `elementsEqual` is exactly such an example, because it >>>> makes no sense to use it on a Set. >>>> >>>> let s1 = Set([1,2,3,4,5,6]) >>>> let s2 = Set([6,5,4,3,2,1]) >>>> >>>> Both sets have different iteration orders. Comparing those sets with some >>>> other collection using `elementsEqual` will give no meaningful result >>>> because the order - and therefore the result of `elementsEqual` - is in >>>> effect random. >>>> >>>> No, it is not such an example; it’s misleadingly named but works >>>> correctly—that is, its behavior matches exactly the documented behavior, >>>> which relies on only the semantic guarantees of Sequence, which Set >>>> correctly fulfills. >>> >>> Fulfills to the letter. Again, what can you do with it if the result is >>> random?? >>> >>> The result is not random. >> >> >> It is undefined though. As you said earlier, by the guarantees we have been >> given, it may shift over different builds/runs of a program. Thus in one >> run, it might return true and then false in another (without changing our >> code). As Greg pointed out, it is also possible with the guarantees we are >> given, for set/dict to have different orderings with copies of themselves. >> (It will happen for sure when deep copying a dictionary with reference-type >> keys). >> >> As I wrote to Greg, if that is a possibility for Set, then the >> implementation is problematic for conformance to Collection and needs to be >> re-examined. > > So why not fix both things at once with a single change? > >> >> I’m not sure why you claim the order of a dictionary will definitiely change >> on deep copying. But in any case, we are not talking about deep copying >> here, or at least, I’m not; we’re talking about the notional copying >> involved in the semantics of passing a set as an argument. > > Because the ordering of some dictionaries depends on the memory address of > the key. There is no way to copy the key in those cases without changing the > ordering. You can watch their ordering shift in the debugger from run to run. > > I’m fine with that. Instances of reference types have identity. A deep copy > of a dictionary *has different keys* from the original. This may not be so > from the perspective of a custom == operator, but it most certainly is so > from the perspective of reference type semantics. So to me it is fine > (correct, even?) that a deep copy of a dictionary has a different iteration > order—it has different keys. > > Again, this is something entirely different from notional copies made in the > course of passing values as arguments. > >> As I keep saying, relying on the behavior of a leaking internal >> implementation is a bad plan. >> >> Again, it is not a leaking internal implementation. It is a public API >> guarantee. > > The public API guarantee is that there will be some ordering that is stable > for a particular instance on a particular run (as long as it is not > mutated/copied). The actual ordering is undefined. > > Any generic code which depends on a particular ordering will have output > which is undefined. > > Generic code is incorrect that “depends on a particular ordering” because it > assumes semantics that are not guaranteed. > > Just because a function returns a seemingly predictable value doesn’t mean it > is entirely deterministic. There are lots of vulnerabilities in C/C++ due to > reliance on undefined behavior. > > >> We should add an additional guarantee to set/dict that the order returned >> will be the same for the same contents regardless of history (but can be >> otherwise arbitrary). That will fix the behavior for algorithms like >> elementsEqual (i.e. They will return the same result across builds/runs). >> It will also implicitly provide as a result, the constraint you were arguing >> is needed across copies of a collection type. I agree that that is an >> important guarantee. Why not fix both issues with a single >> non-source-breaking change? >> >> As I wrote, the behavior of elementsEqual is not broken and does not require >> fixing. > > Your argument for that is tautological though. You could argue for keeping > any bug in the codebase using the same reasoning. > > Why was elementsEqual created? Isn’t it meant to check equality of two > sequences in a generic context where == isn’t available? > > No no no no no no no no. That’s precisely why the name is misleading. > elementsEqual is *not* simply a mixed-type version of ==. Remember that == as > implemented on a concrete sequence type *has no obligation* to use > elementwise comparison using the element’s implementation of ==. This is not > merely theoretical: [Float].== does *not* do an elementwise comparison using > Float.==. By contrast, you are guaranteed a true elementwise comparison with > elementsEqual regardless of how equivalence is defined for the sequence. elementsEqual shouldn’t fully imply == of the original type (only that the elements are “equivalent in the same order” which is what it means for generic sequences to be equivalent). But ‘==‘ does NEED to imply elementsEqual. Otherwise you break the meaning of ‘==' > Isn’t it problematic that two equivalent sets may not be equivalent in a > generic context? > > Again, this shows why the name is unfortunate. elementsEqual is not supposed > to be a generic version of ==, and its name is misleading. Repeat: > elementsEqual is *not* an alternative for == in either the generic or > concrete context. Neither one implies the other. What are you basing this very strong belief on? Has the core team stated that elementsEqual should not be used to check the equality of sequences? elementsEqual can only provide a notion of equivalence within the generic context, of course (and not equivalence of the original types overall), but it is still a notion of equivalence within the context. As I said above (and in another email), ‘==‘ has to imply elementsEqual. Otherwise you break substitutability. >> What is the benefit of the guarantee you propose that justifies the >> performance cost? > > > The benefit is that generic algorithms which rely on ordering of unordered > things would be much more robust. It would solve your copy issue as well. > > You are acting like there is a huge performance cost. There isn’t. For Set, > it would still have the traditional performance characteristics for Sets. Any > slowdown (by un-cutting corners) would be amortized over insertions. (note: I > am talking option #3 from my summary here, not #5, which was the one with an > actual performance cost) I see you skipped responding to this. >> Why is the source-breaking change of renaming things better? >> >> Because, in my analysis, the problem is that the method is incorrectly >> named. The problem affects all types that conform to Sequence and not just >> Set and Dictionary; elementsEqual is a distinct function from ==, and it >> must either continue to be distinct or cease to exist, but its name does >> nothing to clarify any distinction. > > It also won’t fix the original problem you mention as motivation. People > will still be surprised at equivalent sets having different iteration orders > regardless of what the function is named. > > That is not the motivating problem. The motivating problem is that people > think that elementsEqual is semantically equivalent to ==. It is a distinct > method that *does not test* equivalence of two sequences. The motivating problem you originally gave was that people are surprised when Set([1,2,3]).elementsEqual(Set[3,2,1]) returns false. You believe it is because they don’t get that elementsEqual works sequentially (on Sequence), and I say it is because people expect equivalent sets to produce equivalent element orders. Thanks, Jon
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
