Measurement #4167
Merged
Measurement #4167
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The default implementation for comparable automatically adds >, >= etc by having == and < defined. Also the dynamic check for comparison of measurements that are convertible should traverse through the same runtime equality check instead of a static dispatch call out. This resolves: <rdar://problem/27556581> Measurement type defines two '==' functions
…fy comparison and equality After speaking with the current owner of Measurement, the most sensible path is to at runtime verifty the conformance of Units to a specific dimension since we cannot directly check at compile time. If at a future point in time a more specific comparitor can be added that can restrict the comparison to measurements in a specific dimension without causing equatable failures we may want to revisit this. However as it stands this preserves the most reasonable implementation of comparison of disperate measurement unit types while preserving the expected logic of conversions within that dimension.
Member
|
@swift-ci smoke test os x |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What's in this pull request?
The default implementation for comparable automatically adds >, >= etc by having == and < defined. Also the dynamic check for comparison of measurements that are convertible should traverse through the same runtime equality check instead of a static dispatch call out.
Additional conformance changes for Measurement and unit tests to verify comparison and equality.
After speaking with the current owner of Measurement, the most sensible path is to at runtime verifty the conformance of Units to a specific dimension since we cannot directly check at compile time. If at a future point in time a more specific comparitor can be added that can restrict the comparison to measurements in a specific dimension without causing equatable failures we may want to revisit this. However as it stands this preserves the most reasonable implementation of comparison of disperate measurement unit types while preserving the expected logic of conversions within that dimension.
This is a cherry pick of #4110 to master
Resolved bug number:
rdar://problem/27556581 Measurement type defines two '==' functions