[stdlib] 0-ary tuples should be equatable #8354

anayini · 2017-03-26T17:45:10Z

Add an == method for comparing two empty tuples.

Resolves: SR-4172 (https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-4172)

Add an == method for comparing two empty tuples. Resolves: SR-4172 (https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-4172)

anayini · 2017-03-26T17:45:53Z

@swift-ci Please smoke test

CodaFi

May as well do the full monty and edit the gyb template to make tuples quasi-Comparable too. This is also missing !=.

anayini · 2017-03-26T19:59:30Z

@CodaFi - Thanks. Just to clarify edit the .gyb to add !=, <, <=, >, >=? Does the bug need to be edited to include that?

CodaFi · 2017-03-26T21:02:35Z

You should edit the GYB template to account for the non-generic 0-ary tuple. It should be possible to do this "in GYB's terms" so we don't litter this file with just this specific conformance.

anayini · 2017-03-26T21:27:48Z

Gotcha - was considering that adding extra logic for the 0 case in the existing templated methods might actually be less readable / more complicated (both the impls and comment generation will have to fork based on arity) than having a specific extra section for 0 outside of that, but can do that if preferred since it would litter less.

practicalswift · 2017-03-27T20:20:33Z

👍 for the initiative/idea!

moiseev · 2017-03-27T21:25:27Z

Thanks @anayini! I agree that trying to incorporate the () into an existing gyb is not worth the effort, especially given that the one-tuple case will still be missing.
Please add the missing != and Comparable operators with doc comments.

moiseev · 2017-03-27T21:28:37Z

stdlib/public/core/Tuple.swift.gyb

@@ -23,6 +23,14 @@ comparableOperators = [

 }%

+/// Two tuples each of arity 0 are equal


I would copy the heading from the 'generic' == on tuples, and later add a sentence that all empty-tuples are equal to each other as a note.

/// Returns a Boolean value indicating whether the corresponding components of /// two tuples are equal. /// /// All zero-arity tuples are equal.

Similarly for the < etc...

Add `!=`, `<`, `<=`, `>`, `>=` to 0-ary tuples Resolves: SR-4172 (https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-4172)

anayini · 2017-03-28T02:19:02Z

@moiseev - Updated to address your comments. Could also roll up the Comparable operators for the () into gyb format. Would probably separate out the comparableOperators list into two separate lists (one with the strict operators, one with the others) so that the template code could return true or false based on if they are unstrict operators or not for the () case.

moiseev · 2017-03-28T03:44:49Z

stdlib/public/core/Tuple.swift.gyb

+/// Returns a Boolean value indicating whether any corresponding components of
+/// the two tuples are not equal.
+///
+/// Two tuples each of arity zero are never unequal


'never unequal' is a bit hard to understand (and there is a period missing ;-)). I'd go with the same note as for the ==.

Makes sense

moiseev · 2017-03-28T03:47:09Z

I don't mind the non-gybbed version. @CodaFi , @airspeedswift what do you think?

CodaFi · 2017-03-28T21:25:34Z

I don't have any qualms with not using GYB here - my thinking was that the file would be more resilient to future interface changes/tuple changes and we could update everything all at once. But that's a lot of work that can be done later. For now, LGTM.

anayini · 2017-03-28T21:30:01Z

There a bit of more discussion here: https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-4172, regarding the size of this code and whether the Comparable operators are needed. It also includes a helpful example for why the == operator could be useful to someone.

CodaFi · 2017-03-29T16:34:43Z

@swift-ci please smoke test

anayini · 2017-03-29T18:10:42Z

Welp, I suck. Looks like a failure in IDE/complete_operators.swift, which I guess I didn't run locally. Will investigate at some point today

moiseev · 2017-03-29T18:17:00Z

@anayini that's why we have CI ;-) Few people have enough resources and patience to run all the tests locally.

anayini · 2017-04-24T03:45:10Z

Long time since last update, sorry about that. - @moiseev I'm actually still pretty confused about how the IDE code completion tests run using FileCheck. I've got something that I believe passes, but I'm definitely still confused about the semantics of the file.

I basically have a pseudo understanding of how it works, but would like a deeper understanding so that I can update my commit to make sense.

anayini · 2017-04-24T21:07:42Z

test/IDE/complete_operators.swift

@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@
 // RUN: %target-swift-ide-test -code-completion -source-filename=%s -code-completion-token=INFIX_14 | %FileCheck %s -check-prefix=NO_OPERATORS
 // RUN: %target-swift-ide-test -code-completion -source-filename=%s -code-completion-token=INFIX_15 | %FileCheck %s -check-prefix=NO_OPERATORS
 // RUN: %target-swift-ide-test -code-completion -source-filename=%s -code-completion-token=INFIX_16 | %FileCheck %s -check-prefix=NO_OPERATORS
-// RUN: %target-swift-ide-test -code-completion -source-filename=%s -code-completion-token=INFIX_17 | %FileCheck %s -check-prefix=NO_OPERATORS
+// RUN: %target-swift-ide-test -code-completion -source-filename=%s -code-completion-token=INFIX_17 | %FileCheck %s -check-prefix=VOID_OPERATORS


Should maybe rename VOID_OPERATORS to VOID_INFIX_OPERATORS?

anayini · 2017-04-24T21:08:47Z

test/IDE/complete_operators.swift

 func testInfix17(x: Void) {
  x#^INFIX_17^#
 }
+
+// VOID_OPERATORS: Begin completions


Generally want some feedback as to where the CHECK: lines need to go. Even before this PR seems like the NO_OPERATORS-NOT was in a strange place, but could be my misunderstanding.

FileCheck is part of LLVM. See here for the documentation.

Oh, I see how this is related to the change. () is same as Void, and therefore we get all the equality/comparison ops on the value of type Void. This might have other consequences...

Yup. Took me a bit to figure out, but yeah SourceKit code completion was offering suggestions of all the equality/comparison ops that were added, but it wasn't expecting any suggestions so this test was failing.

/cc @airspeedswift

moiseev · 2017-04-25T21:06:31Z

@swift-ci Please smoke test

moiseev · 2017-04-25T21:08:09Z

test/IDE/complete_operators.swift

@@ -244,6 +244,7 @@ func testInfix11() {
  S2#^INFIX_11^#
 }
 // NO_OPERATORS-NOT: Decl[InfixOperatorFunction]
+


Why the newline?

Ah sorry - I can remove that.

anayini · 2017-05-01T18:28:52Z

bump @airspeedswift

I can fix the newline nits, but wanted to see if you had any other feedback if you have some time
:)

anayini · 2017-05-05T23:02:42Z

@moiseev - anyone else we can get feedback from :)

I'll push up the whitespace fix, but was going to wait for other feedback in case its needed.

moiseev · 2017-05-06T00:01:04Z

@anayini Sorry for the silence. Last I remember there were some discussions about it. We'll get back to you once things clear up. Thanks for your patience!

anayini · 2017-05-18T22:56:25Z

@moiseev - Just checking in again :)

anayini · 2017-06-03T22:58:19Z

@moiseev - Did ya'll come to a conclusion? Should I close for now?

moiseev · 2017-06-07T16:38:49Z

@swift-ci please smoke test

moiseev · 2017-06-07T21:54:07Z

@swift-ci Please Test Source Compatibility

anayini · 2017-06-13T17:47:46Z

@moiseev - Can dive into the Source Compatibility Suite error log - do these tests ever flake? If so, can you rerun?

jrose-apple · 2017-06-13T17:53:21Z

This one's a known issue that we just XFAILed. I'll kick off another run for you.

@swift-ci Please test source compatibility

anayini · 2017-06-14T03:56:09Z

Hm seems like this time its an IndexError: list index out of range from
xfail['branch'][swift_branch].split()[0]

jrose-apple · 2017-06-14T17:37:11Z

Finally back to normal!

@swift-ci Please test source compatibility

anayini · 2017-06-14T18:41:43Z

😄 . All green!

anayini · 2017-06-15T17:57:10Z

@moiseev - Are we good to merge?

moiseev · 2017-06-15T21:15:24Z

@anayini, do you mind sending an email to swift-evolution with a proposal to refine https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0015-tuple-comparison-operators.md to cover the empty tuple case?

anayini · 2017-07-09T09:49:51Z

@moiseev - Sorry for the delay - was getting ready for a long OOTO and am now out of the country until the end of the month. Will be able to check in on this periodically. Sent the email.

anayini · 2017-07-12T06:04:50Z

@moiseev - Looks like it was accepted to be posted on swift-evolution. What are the next steps?

moiseev · 2017-07-12T23:13:19Z

@anayini Thanks for the contribution and your patience!

[stdlib] 0-ary tuples should be equatable

e1a5a81

Add an == method for comparing two empty tuples. Resolves: SR-4172 (https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-4172)

CodaFi requested changes Mar 26, 2017

View reviewed changes

CodaFi requested a review from airspeedswift March 26, 2017 19:38

jrose-apple requested a review from moiseev March 27, 2017 20:53

moiseev reviewed Mar 27, 2017

View reviewed changes

[stdlib] Add other comparison operators to 0-ary tuples

3af43b6

Add `!=`, `<`, `<=`, `>`, `>=` to 0-ary tuples Resolves: SR-4172 (https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-4172)

moiseev reviewed Mar 28, 2017

View reviewed changes

[stdlib] Address PR style comments

a7059ba

CodaFi approved these changes Mar 28, 2017

View reviewed changes

[stdlib] Update IDE tests

c76c039

anayini commented Apr 24, 2017

View reviewed changes

moiseev reviewed Apr 25, 2017

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'master' into bugfix/SR-4172

a3e94cc

moiseev merged commit ce53a65 into apple:master Jul 12, 2017

jessesquires mentioned this pull request Jul 13, 2017

[78] Issue #78 - July 13, 2017 SwiftWeekly/swiftweekly.github.io#288

Closed

swift-ci mentioned this pull request Mar 28, 2017

[SR-4172] () == () doesn't compile #46755

Closed

		@@ -23,6 +23,14 @@ comparableOperators = [

		}%

		/// Two tuples each of arity 0 are equal

[stdlib] 0-ary tuples should be equatable #8354

[stdlib] 0-ary tuples should be equatable #8354

Conversation

anayini commented Mar 26, 2017

anayini commented Mar 26, 2017

CodaFi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

anayini commented Mar 26, 2017 • edited

CodaFi commented Mar 26, 2017 • edited

anayini commented Mar 26, 2017 • edited

practicalswift commented Mar 27, 2017

moiseev commented Mar 27, 2017

moiseev Mar 27, 2017 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

anayini commented Mar 28, 2017 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

moiseev commented Mar 28, 2017

CodaFi commented Mar 28, 2017 • edited

anayini commented Mar 28, 2017

CodaFi commented Mar 29, 2017

anayini commented Mar 29, 2017

moiseev commented Mar 29, 2017

anayini commented Apr 24, 2017 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

anayini Apr 25, 2017 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

moiseev commented Apr 25, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

anayini commented May 1, 2017

anayini commented May 5, 2017

moiseev commented May 6, 2017

anayini commented May 18, 2017

anayini commented Jun 3, 2017

moiseev commented Jun 7, 2017

moiseev commented Jun 7, 2017

anayini commented Jun 13, 2017

jrose-apple commented Jun 13, 2017

anayini commented Jun 14, 2017

jrose-apple commented Jun 14, 2017

anayini commented Jun 14, 2017 • edited

anayini commented Jun 15, 2017

moiseev commented Jun 15, 2017

anayini commented Jul 9, 2017 • edited

anayini commented Jul 12, 2017

moiseev commented Jul 12, 2017

anayini commented Mar 26, 2017 •

edited

CodaFi commented Mar 26, 2017 •

edited

anayini commented Mar 26, 2017 •

edited

moiseev Mar 27, 2017 •

edited

anayini commented Mar 28, 2017 •

edited

CodaFi commented Mar 28, 2017 •

edited

anayini commented Apr 24, 2017 •

edited

anayini Apr 25, 2017 •

edited

anayini commented Jun 14, 2017 •

edited

anayini commented Jul 9, 2017 •

edited