digitalmars.D - partial orders and opCmp.
- James McCartney (9/9) Jan 03 2006 I'm just reading about D for the first time.
- Don Clugston (9/20) Jan 03 2006 At some point D will need an opUnorderedCmp() or similar, to allow
- James Dunne (3/28) Jan 04 2006 How does an AA come into play here? Can partially ordered classes be
- Oskar Linde (6/8) Jan 04 2006 Not with the AA as it is implemented currently. But it is very possible
- Stewart Gordon (16/25) Jan 05 2006 At the moment, you can't create a class without a total order at all,
- James McCartney (5/14) Jan 05 2006 Did I say it was partially ordered? No, I didn't: "For example, floating...
- Stewart Gordon (23/40) Jan 05 2006 But you can what in C++? Bend the semantics of the < <= > >= operators?...
- James McCartney (3/7) Jan 05 2006 So current mathematics notation has it wrong then?
I'm just reading about D for the first time. It seems that having opCmp instead of overloading operators independantly makes it impossible to create classes which have partial orders instead of total orders. This is unfortunate if true; partial ordering is a common situation. For example, floating point numbers are not totally ordered due to NaN which is defined to fail all comparisons. It seems you can't write opCmp to cause it to fail all comparisons.
Jan 03 2006
James McCartney wrote:I'm just reading about D for the first time. It seems that having opCmp instead of overloading operators independantly makes it impossible to create classes which have partial orders instead of total orders. This is unfortunate if true; partial ordering is a common situation. For example, floating point numbers are not totally ordered due to NaN which is defined to fail all comparisons. It seems you can't write opCmp to cause it to fail all comparisons.At some point D will need an opUnorderedCmp() or similar, to allow overrides of the NCEG operators ( <>, !>=, etc). If an opUnorderedCmp() is available for a class, the definitions of >, >= etc also need to change. I don't think it's particularly difficult to implement, it just hasn't been requested yet. The NCEG operators will make D exceptionally well equipped to deal with partially ordered classes. Two cases that immediately come to mind are a tribool class, and NULL in SQL.
Jan 03 2006
Don Clugston wrote:James McCartney wrote:How does an AA come into play here? Can partially ordered classes be used effectively with an AA?I'm just reading about D for the first time. It seems that having opCmp instead of overloading operators independantly makes it impossible to create classes which have partial orders instead of total orders. This is unfortunate if true; partial ordering is a common situation. For example, floating point numbers are not totally ordered due to NaN which is defined to fail all comparisons. It seems you can't write opCmp to cause it to fail all comparisons.At some point D will need an opUnorderedCmp() or similar, to allow overrides of the NCEG operators ( <>, !>=, etc). If an opUnorderedCmp() is available for a class, the definitions of >, >= etc also need to change. I don't think it's particularly difficult to implement, it just hasn't been requested yet. The NCEG operators will make D exceptionally well equipped to deal with partially ordered classes. Two cases that immediately come to mind are a tribool class, and NULL in SQL.
Jan 04 2006
Oskar Linde <oskar.lindeREM OVEgmail.com> James Dunne wrote:How does an AA come into play here? Can partially ordered classes be used effectively with an AA?Not with the AA as it is implemented currently. But it is very possible to build an efficient AA implementation without needing comparison operators other than opEquals(). A good hash function becomes more important though. /Oskar
Jan 04 2006
James McCartney wrote:I'm just reading about D for the first time. It seems that having opCmp instead of overloading operators independantly makes it impossible to create classes which have partial orders instead of total orders. This is unfortunate if true; partial ordering is a common situation.At the moment, you can't create a class without a total order at all, let alone with a partial order instead. But you can create one with a partial order, by defining your own function to do it.For example, floating point numbers are not totally ordered due to NaN which is defined to fail all comparisons. It seems you can't write opCmp to cause it to fail all comparisons.That's not a partial order, since even NaN <= NaN or NaN == NaN evaluates to false. Stewart. -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS/M d- s:- C++ a->--- UB P+ L E W++ N+++ o K- w++ O? M V? PS- PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Jan 05 2006
In article <dpjbbf$26al$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Stewart Gordon says...At the moment, you can't create a class without a total order at all, let alone with a partial order instead. But you can create one with a partial order, by defining your own function to do it.Yes, but I can in C++. It would be nice to be able to do it in D.Did I say it was partially ordered? No, I didn't: "For example, floating point numbers are not totally ordered"For example, floating point numbers are not totally ordered due to NaN which is defined to fail all comparisons. It seems you can't write opCmp to cause it to fail all comparisons.That's not a partial order, since even NaN <= NaN or NaN == NaN evaluates to false.
Jan 05 2006
James McCartney wrote:In article <dpjbbf$26al$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Stewart Gordon says...But you can what in C++? Bend the semantics of the < <= > >= operators? I recall reading something in the D spec to the effect that every operator has a specific meaning that should not be messed with, but can't seem to find it now. Those I/O libraries that overload << >> like the old C++ streams are already pushing it, but with the comparison operators being used for AAs and sorting, you'd be best off leaving well alone in any case. And so defining functions in a name of your choice to implement the partial order really is the best way.At the moment, you can't create a class without a total order at all, let alone with a partial order instead. But you can create one with a partial order, by defining your own function to do it.Yes, but I can in C++. It would be nice to be able to do it in D.No, but you did say "for example". But yes, it seems that floating points are an exception. I guess you're just not supposed to use NaNs as AA keys or sort an array of floating points that might include NaNs. Stewart. -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS/M d- s:- C++ a->--- UB P+ L E W++ N+++ o K- w++ O? M V? PS- PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.Did I say it was partially ordered? No, I didn't: "For example, floating point numbers are not totally ordered"For example, floating point numbers are not totally ordered due to NaN which is defined to fail all comparisons. It seems you can't write opCmp to cause it to fail all comparisons.That's not a partial order, since even NaN <= NaN or NaN == NaN evaluates to false.
Jan 05 2006
In article <dpjkbj$2fd2$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Stewart Gordon says...Bend the semantics of the < <= > >= operators?Yes. "bend" them in the same way that mathematics does.I recall reading something in the D spec to the effect that every operator has a specific meaning that should not be messed with, but can't seem to find it now.So current mathematics notation has it wrong then?
Jan 05 2006