Re: Proposal: Make Eq type class single method

Is there a language feature that could be built that would reduce the cost of inter-package refactors like this in the future?

On October 25, 2021 4:06:46 PM UTC, "Hécate" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Hi Joachim :)
>
>I will have to express a friendly but firm disagreement on the argument of a
>"one time cost".
>You will also have to open PRs for every library, change pedagogical 
>material,
>broadcast those changes to developers, and provide scripts for code-modding
>tools in order to automate this on proprietary codebases.
>
>Side-proposal
>
>If you really want to break a bunch of things and fix mistake of the past,
>I would suggest to really go for the throat and have PartialEq, 
>PartialOrd, Eq, and Ord
>
>We could finally get rid of the Eq instance for the various IEEE types 
>like Double, and promote
>property testing to the wider public to verify that the laws are indeed 
>respected by the implementations.
>
>
>module NewClasses where
>
>import Prelude hiding (Eq(..), Ord(..))
>
>-- | Equality comparisons which are partial equivalence relations.
>class PartialEq a where
>   (==) :: a -> a -> Bool
>
>-- | Equality comparisons which are equivalence relations.
>-- It is laws-only and manual implementations would be
>-- verified through property testing.
>class PartialEq a => Eq a
>
>-- | Partial order
>class PartialEq a => PartialOrd a where
>   compare' :: a -> a -> Maybe Ordering
>   (<) :: a -> a -> Bool
>   (<=) :: a -> a -> Bool
>   (>) :: a -> a -> Bool
>   (>=) :: a -> a -> Bool
>
>-- | Total order
>class (PartialOrd a, Eq a) => Ord a where
>   compare :: a -> a -> Ordering
>   max :: a -> a -> a
>   min :: a -> a -> a
>
>
>Cheers,
>Hécate
>
>Le 25/10/2021 à 15:22, Joachim Breitner a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>> ah, yes, let me summarize my main motivation (perf benefits were just a
>> side-benefit I was hoping for):
>>
>> You can’t implement (/=) faster than (==) (up to, in the worst case,
>> the cost of a single `not`, which often gets optimized away anyways).
>>
>> As such, having (/=) in Eq was a (small) mistake back then, and it’s
>> worth fixing.
>>
>> There is one time cost of asking developers to _remove_ code. But code
>> that was probably not worth writing in the first place! And I don’t
>> blame them, the Eq class _invites_ writing that code.
>>
>> Then the benefits are twofold:
>>   
>>   * No more awkwards explanations about silly things in the likely first
>>     type class that developers care about.
>>
>>   * Less code to read, maintain, compile in all the libraries that _do_
>>     define (/=) right now.
>>
>>   * Devs who instantiate Eq in the future will not be tricked into
>>     wondering if they need to implement (/=) and why.
>>
>> So even if “helps teaching beginners” doesn’t beat “having to bug
>> maintainers”, then maybe the second point (“saving all develpers time
>> and effort in the future”) does?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Joachim
>
>-- 
>Hécate ✨
>🐦: @TechnoEmpress
>IRC: Hecate
>WWW: https://glitchbra.in
>RUN: BSD
>
>_______________________________________________
>Libraries mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries