Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

Embed
What would you like to do?
Rename Sequence.elementsEqual

Rename Sequence.elementsEqual

  • Proposal: SE-NNNN
  • Authors: Xiaodi Wu
  • Review Manager: TBD
  • Status: Awaiting review

During the review process, add the following fields as needed:

Introduction

The behavior of Sequence.elementsEqual is confusing to users given its name. Having surveyed alternative solutions to this problem, it is proposed that the method be renamed to Sequence.elementsEqualInIterationOrder.

Swift-evolution thread: Rename Sequence.elementsEqual

Motivation

As Ole Begemann describes, use of Sequence.elementsEqual(_:) can lead to surprising results for two instances of Set:

var set1: Set<Int> = Set(1...5)
var set2: Set<Int> = Set((1...5).reversed())

set1 == set2 // true
set1.elementsEqual(set2) // false

In almost all circumstances where a set is compared to another set or a dictionary is compared to another dictionary, users should use ==, which is order-insensitive, instead of elementsEqual(_:), which is order-sensitive.

As Michael Ilseman explains:

We have two forms of equality we're talking about: equality of Sequence and equality of the elements of Sequences in their respective ordering. == covers the former, and I'll use the existing (harmful) name of elementsEqual for the latter.

== conveys substitutability of the two Sequences. This does not necessarily entail anything about their elements, how those elements are ordered, etc., it just means two Sequences are substitutable. elementsEqual means that the two Sequences produce substitutable elements. These are different concepts and both are independently useful.

Cases:

  1. Two Sequences are substitutable and produce substitutable elements when iterated. == and elementsEqual both return true.

Example: Two arrays with the same elements in the same order.

  1. Two Sequences are substitutable, but do not produce substitutable elements when iterated. == returns true, while elementsEqual returns false.

Example: Two Sets that contain the same elements but in a different order.

Contrived Example: Two Lorem Ipsum generators are the same generator (referentially equal, substitutable for the purposes of my library), but they sample the user’s current battery level (global state) each time they produce text to decide how fancy to make the faux Latin. They’re substitutable, but don’t generate the same sequence.

  1. Two Sequences are not substitutable, but produce substitutable elements when iterated. == returns false, while elementsEqual returns true.

Example: Consider two sequences that have differing identity. == operates on an identity level, elementsEqual operates at an element level.

Contrived Example: InfiniteMonkeys and Shakespeare both produce the same sonnet, but they’re not substitutable for my library’s purposes.

  1. Two Sequences are not substitutable and don’t produce substitutable elements when iterated. == and elementsEqual both return false.

Example: [1,2,3] compared to [4,5,6]

It is true that situations #2 and #3 are a little harder to grok, but they are what illustrate the subtle difference at hand. I think situation #2 is the most confusing, and has been the primary focus of this thread as Set exists and exhibits it.

Proposed solution

The method elementsEqual(_:) is listed as an "order-dependent operation" in Apple documentation. However, its name does not suggest that it performs an order-sensitive comparison. (Other "order-dependent operations" incorporate words that clearly suggest order dependence in the name, such as "first," "last," "prefix," "suffix," and so on.)

These "order-dependent operations" are available for use because Set and Dictionary conform to Sequence. Major changes to the protocol hierarchy for Swift standard library collection types are out of the scope of this proposal, if not out of scope for Swift 5 entirely.

The proposed solution is the result of an iterative process of reasoning, presented here:

The first and most obvious solution is to remove the elementsEqual(_:) method altogether in favor of ==. This prevents its misuse. However, because elementsEqual(_:) is a generic method on Sequence, we can use it to compare an instance of UnsafeBufferPointer<Int> to an instance of [Int]. This is a potentially useful and non-redundant feature which would be eliminated if the method is removed altogether.

A second solution is to create overloads that forbid the use of elementsEqual(_:) method specifically in non-generic code that uses sets or dictionaries. This would certainly prevent misuse in non-generic code. However, it would also forbid legitimate mixed-type comparisons in non-generic code, and it would not prevent misuse in generic code. This solution also creates a difference in the behavior of generic and non-generic code that calls the same method, which is confusing, without solving the problem completely.

A third solution is proposed here. It is predicated on the following observation:

Another method similar to elementsEqual(_:) exists on Sequence named lexicographicallyPrecedes(_:). Like prefix(_:) and others, it is an order-dependent operation not completely suitable for an unordered collection. However, like prefix(_:) and unlike elementsEqual(_:), this fact is called out in the name of the method. Unsurprisingly, like prefix(_:) and unlike elementsEqual(_:), there is no evidence that lexicographicallyPrecedes(_:) has been a pitfall for users.

This observation suggests that a major reason for confusion over elementsEqual(_:) stems from its name. So, it is proposed that elementsEqual(_:) should be renamed.

Initially, the suggested name for this method was lexicographicallyMatches, to parallel lexicographicallyPrecedes. This was opposed on two grounds:

  • The term matches suggests a connection to pattern matching which does not exist.
  • The term lexicographically is unfamiliar to users, is inaccurate in the absence of a total ordering (i.e., where Sequence.Element does not conform to Comparable), and could erroneously suggest that the receiver and argument could themselves be re-ordered for comparison.

Alternative suggestions used terms such as pairwise, iterative, ordered, or sequential. A revised name that aims for call-site clarity while incorporating these suggestions would be equalsInIterationOrder.

However, the name should reflect the distinction, explained above, between equality of sequences and equality of their elements. It remains important for the renamed method to clarify that it is performing a comparison operation based on Sequence.Element.== and not Sequence.==. Therefore, incorporating this insight, the proposed name for the method is elementsEqualInIterationOrder.

Detailed design

extension Sequence where Element : Equatable {
  @available(swift, deprecated: 5, renamed: "elementsEqualInIterationOrder(_:)")
  public func elementsEqual<Other : Sequence>(
    _ other: Other
  ) -> Bool where Other.Element == Element {
    return elementsEqualInIterationOrder(other)
  }
  
  public func elementsEqualInIterationOrder<Other : Sequence>(
    _ other: Other
  ) -> Bool where Other.Element == Element {
    // The body of this method is unchanged.
    var iter1 = self.makeIterator()
    var iter2 = other.makeIterator()
    while true {
      switch (iter1.next(), iter2.next()) {
      case let (e1?, e2?):
        if e1 != e2 { return false }
      case (_?, nil), (nil, _?):
        return false
      case (nil, nil):
        return true
      }
    }
  }
}

A parallel change will be made with respect to elementsEqual(_:by:); that is, it will be renamed to elementsEqualInIterationOrder(_:by:).

Source compatibility

Existing code that uses elementsEqual will gain a deprecation warning.

Effect on ABI stability

None.

Effect on API resilience

This proposal adds new methods to the public API of Sequence and conforming types.

Alternatives considered

It is to be noted that lexicographicallyPrecedes(_:by:) and elementsEqual(_:by:) are very closely related methods. However, they cannot be unified because they handle sequences of dissimilar count differently.

Along those same lines, the manner in which lexicographicallyPrecedes(_:) and lexicographicallyPrecedes(_:by:) compare sequences of dissimilar count is described by the term lexicographical ("a" < "aa" < "aaa" < "ab"), in contradistinction to length-lexicographical (shortlex) ordering ("a" < "aa" < "ab" < "aaa") or Kleene–Brouwer ordering ("aaa" < "aa" < "ab" < "a"). Though strictly redundant, the name could be modestly clarified by expanding it to lexicographicallyPrecedesInIterationOrder; however, the name cannot be shortened to precedesInIterationOrder without losing information as to the comparison performed. In the absence of evidence that users are using this method incorrectly, the additional consistency gained by adding "in iteration order" to the name is outweighed by the source-breaking nature of the change and the unwieldy end result.

An entirely different solution to the motivating problem is to have sets internally reorder themselves prior to any order-dependent operations so that iteration order is guaranteed to be the same for sets which compare equal. As a result, == and elementsEqual would become equivalent when comparing two sets. Few (if any) other order-dependent operations would benefit from such a change, however, as the result of first remains arbitrary with or without it. There could potentially be a performance cost imposed on all users of sets, and the resulting benefit would be two functionally equivalent methods, which does not make possible any additional uses for the type.

@lorentey

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

lorentey commented Oct 12, 2017

👍
Did you consider naming it lexicographicallyEquals? "Matches" has connotations of pattern matching to me.

@airspeedswift

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

airspeedswift commented Oct 12, 2017

I agree, lexicographicallyEquals sounds better to me.

@lancep

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

lancep commented Oct 12, 2017

+1 for lexicographicallyEquals.

@xwu

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner Author

xwu commented Oct 12, 2017

@lorentey Good point. Agree with that feedback.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.