| 123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160 | /*!@fileForward declares `boost::hana::Comparable`.@copyright Louis Dionne 2013-2017Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0.(See accompanying file LICENSE.md or copy at http://boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt) */#ifndef BOOST_HANA_FWD_CONCEPT_COMPARABLE_HPP#define BOOST_HANA_FWD_CONCEPT_COMPARABLE_HPP#include <boost/hana/config.hpp>BOOST_HANA_NAMESPACE_BEGIN    //! @ingroup group-concepts    //! @defgroup group-Comparable Comparable    //! The `Comparable` concept defines equality and inequality.    //!    //! Intuitively, `Comparable` objects must define a binary predicate named    //! `equal` that returns whether both objects represent the same abstract    //! value. In other words, `equal` must check for deep equality. Since    //! "representing the same abstract value" is difficult to express    //! formally, the exact meaning of equality is partially left to    //! interpretation by the programmer with the following guidelines:\n    //! 1. Equality should be compatible with copy construction; copy    //!    constructing a value yields an `equal` value.    //! 2. Equality should be independent of representation; an object    //!    representing a fraction as `4/8` should be `equal` to an object    //!    representing a fraction as `2/4`, because they both represent    //!    the mathematical object `1/2`.    //!    //! Moreover, `equal` must exhibit properties that make it intuitive to    //! use for determining the equivalence of objects, which is formalized    //! by the laws for `Comparable`.    //!    //!    //! Minimal complete definition    //! ---------------------------    //! 1. `equal`\n    //! When `equal` is defined, `not_equal` is implemented by default as its    //! complement. For all objects `x`, `y` of a `Comparable` tag,    //! @code    //!     not_equal(x, y) == not_(equal(x, y))    //! @endcode    //!    //!    //! Laws    //! ----    //! `equal` must define an [equivalence relation][1], and `not_equal` must    //! be its complement. In other words, for all objects `a`, `b`, `c` with    //! a `Comparable` tag, the following must hold:    //! @code    //!     equal(a, a)                                         // Reflexivity    //!     if equal(a, b) then equal(b, a)                     // Symmetry    //!     if equal(a, b) && equal(b, c) then equal(a, c)      // Transitivity    //!     not_equal(a, b) is equivalent to not_(equal(a, b))    //! @endcode    //!    //!    //! Concrete models    //! ---------------    //! `hana::integral_constant`, `hana::map`, `hana::optional`, `hana::pair`,    //! `hana::range`, `hana::set`, `hana::string`, `hana::tuple`,    //!  `hana::type`    //!    //!    //! Free model for `EqualityComparable` data types    //! ----------------------------------------------    //! Two data types `T` and `U` that model the cross-type EqualityComparable    //! concept presented in [N3351][2] automatically model the `Comparable`    //! concept by setting    //! @code    //!     equal(x, y) = (x == y)    //! @endcode    //! Note that this also makes EqualityComparable types in the    //! [usual sense][3] models of `Comparable` in the same way.    //!    //!    //! Equality-preserving functions    //! -----------------------------    //! Let `A` and `B` be two `Comparable` tags. A function @f$f : A \to B@f$    //! is said to be equality-preserving if it preserves the structure of the    //! `Comparable` concept, which can be rigorously stated as follows. For    //! all objects `x`, `y` of tag `A`,    //! @code    //!     if  equal(x, y)  then  equal(f(x), f(y))    //! @endcode    //! Equivalently, we simply require that `f` is a function in the usual    //! mathematical sense. Another property is [injectivity][4], which can be    //! viewed as being a "lossless" mapping. This property can be stated as    //! @code    //!     if  equal(f(x), f(y))  then  equal(x, y)    //! @endcode    //! This is equivalent to saying that `f` maps distinct elements to    //! distinct elements, hence the "lossless" analogy. In other words, `f`    //! will not collapse distinct elements from its domain into a single    //! element in its image, thus losing information.    //!    //! These functions are very important, especially equality-preserving    //! ones, because they allow us to reason simply about programs. Also    //! note that the property of being equality-preserving is taken for    //! granted in mathematics because it is part of the definition of a    //! function. We feel it is important to make the distinction here    //! because programming has evolved differently and as a result    //! programmers are used to work with functions that do not preserve    //! equality.    //!    //!    //! Cross-type version of the methods    //! ---------------------------------    //! The `equal` and `not_equal` methods are "overloaded" to handle    //! distinct tags with certain properties. Specifically, they are    //! defined for _distinct_ tags `A` and `B` such that    //! 1. `A` and `B` share a common tag `C`, as determined by the    //!    `common` metafunction    //! 2. `A`, `B` and `C` are all `Comparable` when taken individually    //! 3. @f$ \mathtt{to<C>} : A \to C @f$ and @f$\mathtt{to<C>} : B \to C@f$    //!    are both equality-preserving and injective (i.e. they are embeddings),    //!    as determined by the `is_embedding` metafunction.    //!    //! The method definitions for tags satisfying the above properties are    //! @code    //!     equal(x, y)     = equal(to<C>(x), to<C>(y))    //!     not_equal(x, y) = not_equal(to<C>(x), to<C>(y))    //! @endcode    //!    //!    //! Important note: special behavior of `equal`    //! -------------------------------------------    //! In the context of programming with heterogeneous values, it is useful    //! to have unrelated objects compare `false` instead of triggering an    //! error. For this reason, `equal` adopts a special behavior for    //! unrelated objects of tags `T` and `U` that do not satisfy the above    //! requirements for the cross-type overloads. Specifically, when `T` and    //! `U` are unrelated (i.e. `T` can't be converted to `U` and vice-versa),    //! comparing objects with those tags yields a compile-time false value.    //! This has the effect that unrelated objects like `float` and    //! `std::string` will compare false, while comparing related objects that    //! can not be safely embedded into the same super structure (like    //! `long long` and `float` because of the precision loss) will trigger a    //! compile-time assertion. Also note that for any tag `T` for which the    //! minimal complete definition of `Comparable` is not provided, a    //! compile-time assertion will also be triggered because `T` and `T`    //! trivially share the common tag `T`, which is the expected behavior.    //! This design choice aims to provide more flexibility for comparing    //! objects, while still rejecting usage patterns that are most likely    //! programming errors.    //!    //!    //! [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_relation#Definition    //! [2]: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3351.pdf    //! [3]: http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/named_req/EqualityComparable    //! [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injective_function    template <typename T>    struct Comparable;BOOST_HANA_NAMESPACE_END#endif // !BOOST_HANA_FWD_CONCEPT_COMPARABLE_HPP
 |