Merge pull request #3173 from orlp/float-next-up-down

Add RFC float-next-up-down.

Author: yaahc

text/3173-float-next-up-down.md

@@ -0,0 +1,333 @@
+- Feature Name: `float_next_up_down`
+- Start Date: 2021-09-06
+- RFC PR: [rust-lang/rfcs#3173](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3173)
+- Rust Issue: [rust-lang/rust#91399](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/91399)
+
+# Summary
+[summary]: #summary
+
+This RFC adds two argumentless methods to `f32`/`f64`, `next_up` and
+`next_down`. These functions are specified in the IEEE 754 standard, and provide
+the capability to enumerate floating point values in order.
+
+
+# Motivation
+[motivation]: #motivation
+
+Currently it is not possible to answer the question 'which floating point value
+comes after `x`' in Rust without intimate knowledge of the IEEE 754 standard.
+Answering this question has multiple uses:
+
+ - Simply exploratory or educational purposes. Being able to enumerate values is
+   critical for understanding how floating point numbers work, and how they have
+   varying precision at different sizes. E.g. one might wonder what sort of
+   precision `f32` has at numbers around 10,000. With this feature one could
+   simply print `10_000f32.next_up() - 10_000f32` to find out it is
+   `0.0009765625`.
+
+ - Testing. If you wish to ensure a property holds for all values in a certain
+   range, you need to be able to enumerate them. One might also want to check if
+   and how your function fails just outside its supported range.
+
+ - Exclusive ranges. If you want to ensure a variable lies within an exclusive
+   range, these functions can help. E.g. to ensure that `x` lies within [0, 1)
+   one can write `x.clamp(0.0, 1.0.next_down())`.
+
+
+# Guide-level explanation
+[guide-level-explanation]: #guide-level-explanation
+
+Because floating point numbers have finite precision sometimes you might want to
+know which floating point number is *right* below or above a number you already
+have. For this you can use the methods `next_down` or `next_up` respectively.
+Using them repeatedly allows you to iterate over all the values within a range.
+
+The method `x.next_up()` defined on both `f32` and `f64` returns the smallest
+number greater than `x`. Similarly, `x.next_down()` returns the greatest number
+less than `x`.
+
+If you wanted to test a function for all `f32` floating point values between 1
+and 2, you could for example write:
+```rust
+let mut x = 1.0;
+while x <= 2.0 {
+    test(x);
+    x = x.next_up();
+}
+```
+
+On another occasion might be interested in how much `f32` and `f64` differ in
+their precision for numbers around one million. This is easy to figure out:
+```rust
+dbg!(1_000_000f32.next_up() - 1_000_000.0);
+dbg!(1_000_000f64.next_up() - 1_000_000.0);
+```
+
+The answer is:
+```rust
+1_000_000f32.next_up() - 1_000_000.0 = 0.0625
+1_000_000f64.next_up() - 1_000_000.0 = 0.00000000011641532182693481
+```
+
+If you want to ensure that a value `s` lies within -1 to 1, excluding the
+endpoints, this is easy to do:
+```rust
+s.clamp((-1.0).next_up(), 1.0.next_down())
+```
+
+
+# Reference-level explanation
+[reference-level-explanation]: #reference-level-explanation
+
+The functions `nextUp` and `nextDown` are defined precisely (and identically)
+in the standards IEEE 754-2008 and IEEE 754-2019. This RFC proposes the methods
+`f32::next_up`, `f32::next_down`, `f64::next_up`, and `f64::next_down` with the
+behavior exactly as specified in those standards.
+
+To be precise, let `tiny` be the smallest representable positive value and
+`max` be the largest representable finite positive value of the floating point
+type. Then if `x` is an arbitrary value `x.next_up()` is specified as:
+
+ - `x` if `x.is_nan()`,
+ - `-max` if `x` is negative infinity,
+ - `-0.0` if `x` is `-tiny`,
+ - `tiny` if `x` is `0.0` or `-0.0`,
+ - positive infinity if `x` is `max` or positive infinity, and
+ - the unambiguous and unique minimal finite value `y` such that `x < y` in
+   all other cases.
+
+`x.next_down()` is specified as `-(-x).next_up()`.
+
+A reference implementation for `f32` follows, using exclusively integer
+arithmetic. The implementation for `f64` is entirely analogous, with the
+exception that the constants `0x7fff_ffff` and `0x8000_0001` are replaced by
+respectively `0x7fff_ffff_ffff_ffff` and `0x8000_0000_0000_0001`. Using
+exclusively integer arithmetic aids stabilization as a `const fn`, reduces
+transfers between floating point and integer registers or execution units (which
+incur penalties on some processors), and avoids issues with denormal values
+potentially flushing to zero during floating point arithmetic operations
+on some platforms.
+
+```rust
+/// Returns the least number greater than `self`.
+///
+/// Let `TINY` be the smallest representable positive `f32`. Then,
+///  - if `self.is_nan()`, this returns `self`;
+///  - if `self` is `NEG_INFINITY`, this returns `-MAX`;
+///  - if `self` is `-TINY`, this returns -0.0;
+///  - if `self` is -0.0 or +0.0, this returns `TINY`;
+///  - if `self` is `MAX` or `INFINITY`, this returns `INFINITY`;
+///  - otherwise the unique least value greater than `self` is returned.
+///
+/// The identity `x.next_up() == -(-x).next_down()` holds for all `x`. When `x`
+/// is finite `x == x.next_up().next_down()` also holds.
+pub const fn next_up(self) -> Self {
+    const TINY_BITS: u32 = 0x1; // Smallest positive f32.
+    const CLEAR_SIGN_MASK: u32 = 0x7fff_ffff;
+
+    let bits = self.to_bits();
+    if self.is_nan() || bits == Self::INFINITY.to_bits() {
+        return self;
+    }
+    
+    let abs = bits & CLEAR_SIGN_MASK;
+    let next_bits = if abs == 0 {
+        TINY_BITS
+    } else if bits == abs {
+        bits + 1
+    } else {
+        bits - 1
+    };
+    Self::from_bits(next_bits)
+}
+
+/// Returns the greatest number less than `self`.
+///
+/// Let `TINY` be the smallest representable positive `f32`. Then,
+///  - if `self.is_nan()`, this returns `self`;
+///  - if `self` is `INFINITY`, this returns `MAX`;
+///  - if `self` is `TINY`, this returns 0.0;
+///  - if `self` is -0.0 or +0.0, this returns `-TINY`;
+///  - if `self` is `-MAX` or `NEG_INFINITY`, this returns `NEG_INFINITY`;
+///  - otherwise the unique greatest value less than `self` is returned.
+///
+/// The identity `x.next_down() == -(-x).next_up()` holds for all `x`. When `x`
+/// is finite `x == x.next_down().next_up()` also holds.
+pub const fn next_down(self) -> Self {
+    const NEG_TINY_BITS: u32 = 0x8000_0001; // Smallest (in magnitude) negative f32.
+    const CLEAR_SIGN_MASK: u32 = 0x7fff_ffff;
+
+    let bits = self.to_bits();
+    if self.is_nan() || bits == Self::NEG_INFINITY.to_bits() {
+        return self;
+    }
+    
+    let abs = bits & CLEAR_SIGN_MASK;
+    let next_bits = if abs == 0 {
+        NEG_TINY_BITS
+    } else if bits == abs {
+        bits - 1
+    } else {
+        bits + 1
+    };
+    Self::from_bits(next_bits)
+}
+```
+
+# Drawbacks
+[drawbacks]: #drawbacks
+
+Two more functions get added to `f32` and `f64`, which may be considered
+already cluttered by some.
+
+Additionally, there is a minor pitfall regarding signed zero. Repeatedly calling
+`next_up` on a negative number will iterate over all values above it, with the
+exception of +0.0, only -0.0 will be visited. Similarly starting at positive
+number and iterating downwards will only visit +0.0, not -0.0.
+
+However, if we were to define `(-0.0).next_up() == 0.0` we would lose compliance
+with the IEEE 754 standard, and lose the property that `x.next_up() > x` for all
+finite `x`. It would also lead to the pitfall that `(0.0).next_down()` would not
+be the smallest negative number, but -0.0 instead.
+
+Finally, there is a minor risk of confusion regarding precedence with unary
+minus. A user might inadvertently write `-1.0.next_up()` instead of
+`(-1.0).next_up()`, giving a value on the wrong side of -1. However, this
+potential confusion holds for most methods on `f32`/`f64`, and can be avoided
+by the cautious by writing `f32::next_up(-1.0)`.
+
+
+# Rationale and alternatives
+[rationale-and-alternatives]: #rationale-and-alternatives
+
+To implement the features described in the motivation the user essentially
+*needs* the `next_up`/`next_down` methods, or the alternative mentioned just
+below. If these are not available the user must either install a third party
+library for what is essentially one elementary function, or implement it
+themselves using `to_bits` and `from_bits`. This has several issues or pitfalls:
+
+ 1. The user might not even be aware that a third party library exists,
+    searching the standard library in vain. If they find a third party library
+    they might not be able to judge if it is of sufficient quality and with the
+    exact semantics they expect.
+
+ 2. Even if the user is aware of IEEE 754 representation and chooses to
+    implement it themselves, they might not get the edge cases correct. It is
+    also a wasted duplicate effort.
+
+ 3. The user might misunderstand the meaning of `f32::EPSILON`, thinking that
+    adding this to a number results in the next floating point number.
+    Alternatively they might misunderstand `f32::MIN_POSITIVE` to be the
+    smallest positive `f32`, or believe that `x + f32::MIN_POSITIVE` is a
+    correct implementation of `x.next_up()`.
+  
+ 4. The user might give up entirely and simply choose an arbitrary offset, e.g.
+    instead of `x.clamp(0, 1.0.next_down())` they end up writing
+    `x.clamp(0, 1.0 - 1e-9)`.
+
+The main alternative to these two functions is `nextafter(x, y)` (sometimes
+called `nexttoward`). This function was specified in IEEE 754-1985 to "return
+the next representable neighbor of `x` in the direction toward `y`". If `x == y`
+then `x` is supposed to be returned. Besides error signaling and NaNs, that is
+the complete specification.
+
+We did not choose this function for three reasons:
+
+ - The IEEE specification is lacking, and deprecated. Unfortunately IEEE
+   754-1985 does not specify how to handle signed zeros at all, and some
+   implementations (such as the one in the ISO C standard) deviate from the IEEE
+   754 standard by defining `nextafter(x, y)` as `y` when `x == y`.
+   Specifications IEEE 754-2008 and IEEE 754-2019 do not mention `nextafter` at
+   all.
+
+ - From an informal study by searching for code using `nextafter` or
+   `nexttoward` across a variety of languages we found that essentially every
+   use case in the wild consisted of `nextafter(x, c)` where `c` is a constant
+   effectively equal to negative or positive infinity. That is, the users would
+   have been better suited by `x.next_up()` or `x.next_down()`.
+ 
+   Worse still, we also saw a lot of scenarios where `c` was somewhat
+   arbitrarily chosen to be bigger/smaller than `x`, which might cause bugs when
+   `x` is carelessly changed without updating `c`.
+
+ - The function `next_after` has been deprecated by the libs team in the past
+   (see [Prior art](#prior-art)).
+
+The advantage of a potential `x.next_toward(y)` method would be that only a
+single method would need to be added to `f32`/`f64`, however we argue that this
+simply shifts the burden from documentation bloat to code bloat. Other
+advantages are that it might considered more readable by some, and that it is
+more familiar to those used to `nextafter` in other languages.
+
+Finally, if we were to take inspiration from Julia and Ruby these two functions
+could be called `next_float` and `prev_float`, which are arguably more readable,
+albeit slightly more ambiguous as to which direction 'next' is.
+
+
+# Prior art
+[prior-art]: #prior-art
+
+First we must mention that Rust used to have the `next_after` function, which
+got deprecated in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/27752. We quote
+@alexcrichton:
+
+> We were somewhat ambivalent if I remember correctly on whether to stabilize or
+> deprecate these functions. The functionality is likely needed by someone, but
+> the names are unfortunately sub-par wrt the rest of the module.
+> [...]
+> We realize that the FCP for this issue was pretty short, however, so please
+> comment with any objections you might have! We're very willing to backport an
+> un-deprecate for the few APIs we have this cycle.
+
+One might consider this a formal un-deprecation request, albeit with a different
+name and slightly different API.
+
+Within the Rust ecosystem the crate `float_next_after` solely provides the
+`x.next_after(y)` method, and has 30,000 all-time downloads at the moment of
+writing. The crate `ieee754` provides the `next` and `prev` methods among a few
+others and sits at 244,000 all-time downloads.
+
+As for other languages supporting this feature, the list of prior art is
+extensive:
+
+ - C has `nextafter` and `nexttoward`, essentially identical:  
+   https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/numeric/math/nextafter
+
+ - C++ follows in C's footsteps:  
+   https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/numeric/math/nextafter
+
+ - Python has `nextafter`:  
+   https://docs.python.org/3/library/math.html#math.nextafter
+
+ - Java has `nextUp`, `nextDown` and `nextAfter`:  
+   https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/lang/Math.html#nextUp-double-
+
+ - Swift has `nextUp` and `nextDown`:  
+   https://developer.apple.com/documentation/swift/double/1847593-nextup
+
+ - Go has `Nextafter`:  
+   https://pkg.go.dev/math#Nextafter
+
+ - Julia has `nextfloat` and `prevfloat`:  
+   https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/base/numbers/#Base.nextfloat
+
+ - Ruby has `next_float` and `prev_float`:  
+   https://ruby-doc.org/core-3.0.2/Float.html#next_float-method
+
+
+# Unresolved questions
+[unresolved-questions]: #unresolved-questions
+
+ - Which is the better pair of names, `next_up` and `next_down` or `next_float`
+   and `prev_float`?
+
+# Future possibilities
+[future-possibilities]: #future-possibilities
+
+In the future Rust might consider having an iterator for `f32` / `f64` ranges
+that uses `next_up` or `next_down` internally.
+
+The method `ulp` might also be considered, being a more precise implementation
+of what is approximated as `x.next_up() - x` in this document. Its
+implementation would directly compute the correct [ULP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_in_the_last_place) by inspecting the exponent
+field of the IEEE 754 number.