When a+b+c does not equal c+b+a(ruru.name)
ruru.name
When a+b+c does not equal c+b+a
http://ruru.name/entries/when-a-plus-b-plus-c-equals-c-plus-b-plus-a/
68 comments
Operator overloading sucks. Especially when the expected properties such as commutativity do not hold.
Agreed. Operator overloading of arithmetic is used as the tutorial example with complex numbers. But its utility starts and ends there.
I overload conversions of type, to simplify argument passing. Maybe I shouldn't even do that.
I overload conversions of type, to simplify argument passing. Maybe I shouldn't even do that.
Vectors, Matrices count too I think.
There are some exceptions. For geometric primitives such as matrix addition I might allow it. For complex container types like a "month," it's definitely a show-stopper.
what are some specific disadvantages of operator overloading in the instance of subtracting or adding months together?
It's actually a pretty bad example, apologies. Python ships with a standard library that includes modules such as datetime, timedelta, and calendar. I've been guilty of using all of them.
I can say that when your date math becomes complex enough you might want to consider avoiding them and doing the calculations yourself. In a recent project I had to integrate several systems that stored metering data in UTC with various databases in different local time zones for the purposes of billing on that data. I can say that doing the math is easier and more clear than using objects that encapsulate the data in such complex scenarios.
There is no hard-and-fast rule for me to determine when operator-overloading is inappropriate. I only have a few "smells" I use that raise the hairs on the back of my neck when I encounter them:
1. If your object has one or more boolean members
2. If your operator has to dispatch on more than 1 type
3. If your operator breaks any of the associated identities
Any of these are just warnings. In the case of matrix addition it breaks the Commutative identity of addition but is a well-defined and known property of the operator for anyone who would be reading code involving those kinds of objects that it can be justified. Dates might be defined-enough but intuition clearly get the best of the OP.
It's just a trade-off that I haven't found valuable outside of certain special cases.
I can say that when your date math becomes complex enough you might want to consider avoiding them and doing the calculations yourself. In a recent project I had to integrate several systems that stored metering data in UTC with various databases in different local time zones for the purposes of billing on that data. I can say that doing the math is easier and more clear than using objects that encapsulate the data in such complex scenarios.
There is no hard-and-fast rule for me to determine when operator-overloading is inappropriate. I only have a few "smells" I use that raise the hairs on the back of my neck when I encounter them:
1. If your object has one or more boolean members
2. If your operator has to dispatch on more than 1 type
3. If your operator breaks any of the associated identities
Any of these are just warnings. In the case of matrix addition it breaks the Commutative identity of addition but is a well-defined and known property of the operator for anyone who would be reading code involving those kinds of objects that it can be justified. Dates might be defined-enough but intuition clearly get the best of the OP.
It's just a trade-off that I haven't found valuable outside of certain special cases.
Operator overloading always looks like a clean solution, but complexity finds a way to leak through.
Avoid it, unless you're really overloading things that always behave.
Avoid it, unless you're really overloading things that always behave.
Is it really overloading that's the problem here? Even if you used method names to do this, you'd still have to deal with the fact that the operation being performed is non-commutative.
I don't know that there is a way of expressing such a restriction even if you were using dependent types in such a way as to prevent shooting yourself in the foot here. Possibly you could not implement the month or year span elements altogether and only allow addition of days or seconds?
I don't know that there is a way of expressing such a restriction even if you were using dependent types in such a way as to prevent shooting yourself in the foot here. Possibly you could not implement the month or year span elements altogether and only allow addition of days or seconds?
But nested method calls don't imply commutativity while addition does. So the code is misleading.
I don't follow. How do nested method calls fail to imply commutativity?
For example, using psuedo-Haskell notation:
For example, using psuedo-Haskell notation:
(+):: Int -> Int -> Int
; ncc short for non commutative combination
ncc:: Time -> Time -> Time
1 + 2 + 3
ncc 03:00 (ncc 10:00 02:00)It could be just me but I would expect something that looks like an addition to be commutative but not arbitrary function calls.
But I see what you mean that the types are not much of a help here.
I thought this was going to be another example of floating point arithmetic "gotchas" similar to this:
*Edited to add the non-associative bit)
#!/usr/bin/python
x = 1.
a = 1.
while a+x > a:
x = x/2
print x
b = x
c = x
print a+b+c == c+b+a
print (a+b)+c == a+(b+c)
*Edited to add the non-associative bit)
Which is the case for all vector × vector, vector × matrix and matrix × vector multiplications, for example.
(Taking math at university right now as part of studying compsci, non-commutative rings are annoying)
(Taking math at university right now as part of studying compsci, non-commutative rings are annoying)
Yes, but at least they are all still associative. (Original comment edited to deal with that).
And non-commutivity is important. You can put on your socks then shoes, but get a different result if you put on your shoes then socks. In general you get different results in rotations if you change the order you do them. Similarly permutations.
Non-commutivity is important, it's just that most people don't expect addition to exhibit it. (And by definition, addition is still commutative in non-commutative rings)
And non-commutivity is important. You can put on your socks then shoes, but get a different result if you put on your shoes then socks. In general you get different results in rotations if you change the order you do them. Similarly permutations.
Non-commutivity is important, it's just that most people don't expect addition to exhibit it. (And by definition, addition is still commutative in non-commutative rings)
On a first glance at the link, my guess was string concatenation.
Being able to add timedeltas of a month seems like a spectacularly bad idea.
It's a rails extension.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2699902/get-next-previous...
It's a rails extension.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2699902/get-next-previous...
It's actually quite useful, because for us human beings thinking in months is natural. Think about a user setting for some kind of web notification service:
How often do you want to be notified:
* Once per month
* Once each quarter of a year
* Twice a year
It's straightforward if you can add the number of months to the sign up date. You simply need to define the edge conditions. Example in C#:
I think ruby does the same.
How often do you want to be notified:
* Once per month
* Once each quarter of a year
* Twice a year
It's straightforward if you can add the number of months to the sign up date. You simply need to define the edge conditions. Example in C#:
The AddMonths method calculates the resulting month and year,
taking into account leap years and the number of days in a month,
then adjusts the day part of the resulting DateTime object. If the
resulting day is not a valid day in the resulting month, the last
valid day of the resulting month is used.
For example, March 31st + 1 month = April 30th.
I think ruby does the same.
In typed languages, I'd suggest a case could be made that once you add a "month" to a time, you should get a different type out that should either support a grossly reduced set of operations, or one that would require formal unpacking to produce a "real" datetime that would once again support normal operations. Months and years are dangerous things. (Days technically aren't constant either, but there's a lot of applications like billing where a leap second won't bother you at all if your month & year code just deal with them.)
Add in timezones and you have a whole barrel full of monkeys to deal with. Especially if you have two integrated systems with databases in different timezone formats. Trying to teach computers how to interpret time the way we do intuitively is a peanut butter sandwich experiment. Tedious, frustrating, error prone, and messy.
I also imagined floating point arithmetic problems when seeing the title. What is really happening here is that a, b and c may themselves have different values depending on the operation - as adding a month here isn't a fixed number of days as month lengths differ.
The article states it perfectly at the end though: "When doing math that deals with time, specifically different units of time, it can lead to unexpected results if you are not careful with the ordering". I think this can generally be extended to "when doing any math that deals with time, it can lead to unexpected results if you are not careful with everything"!
The article states it perfectly at the end though: "When doing math that deals with time, specifically different units of time, it can lead to unexpected results if you are not careful with the ordering". I think this can generally be extended to "when doing any math that deals with time, it can lead to unexpected results if you are not careful with everything"!
> "When doing math that deals with time, specifically different units of time, it can lead to unexpected results if you are not careful with the ordering"
Not arguing with you, but with the poster: I think that a deeper lesson might be the important realisation that, unlike 'day' or 'hour', 'month' is not a unit of time! (At least, not any more than 'moment' is. (I know, I know, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_(time), but you know what I mean.))
Not arguing with you, but with the poster: I think that a deeper lesson might be the important realisation that, unlike 'day' or 'hour', 'month' is not a unit of time! (At least, not any more than 'moment' is. (I know, I know, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_(time), but you know what I mean.))
> unlike 'day' or 'hour', 'month' is not a unit of time!
Not a 'fixed unit' of time. Where I define 'fixed' as being always of the same size (like gram or meter).
My next thought is that day is also not fixed in case of daylight saving and leap seconds. A day has many definitions: astronomical, 24 hours, calendar, etc.
Maybe we can also see this problem with 'hour'; but in that case it would be more contrived.
Bottom line: programming time is hard, be aware of that.
See this post for some common pitfalls:
http://infiniteundo.com/post/25326999628/falsehoods-programm...
Not a 'fixed unit' of time. Where I define 'fixed' as being always of the same size (like gram or meter).
My next thought is that day is also not fixed in case of daylight saving and leap seconds. A day has many definitions: astronomical, 24 hours, calendar, etc.
Maybe we can also see this problem with 'hour'; but in that case it would be more contrived.
Bottom line: programming time is hard, be aware of that.
See this post for some common pitfalls:
http://infiniteundo.com/post/25326999628/falsehoods-programm...
> Not a 'fixed unit' of time. Where I define 'fixed' as being always of the same size (like gram or meter).
I would regard that as part of what 'unit' means (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Units_of_measurement), though I'm not sure that there's any universal agreement.
I think that it's fair to say that even, or perhaps especially, the most obvious concepts, when sufficiently well understood, exhibit subtleties. (I always tell students in my mathematics classes that the correct answer to every question is "it depends", and, though it's somewhat facetious, I honestly can't think of a mathematical statement so basic and obvious that a sufficiently sophisticated mathematician couldn't correctly raise this objection.)
With that said, while I agree that there may be different colloquial definitions of 'day' and, as you mention, of 'hour', and even of 'second' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second#Other_current_definitio...), they also have unambiguous scientific definitions that can be pinned down by sufficiently precise reference; whereas 'month' simply does not.
EDIT: I should clarify that I'm not attempting by any of this to say that programming with times isn't hard—it absolutely is. I just think that a large part of it can be traced to confusion about what is not a unit (which, as observed by cies above (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9665366) and DannoHung below (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9665472), can include such seemingly innocuous concepts as 'day'), and that it might be profitable explicitly to state this unifying idea as one way to guide attempts to program successfully with time.
I would regard that as part of what 'unit' means (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Units_of_measurement), though I'm not sure that there's any universal agreement.
I think that it's fair to say that even, or perhaps especially, the most obvious concepts, when sufficiently well understood, exhibit subtleties. (I always tell students in my mathematics classes that the correct answer to every question is "it depends", and, though it's somewhat facetious, I honestly can't think of a mathematical statement so basic and obvious that a sufficiently sophisticated mathematician couldn't correctly raise this objection.)
With that said, while I agree that there may be different colloquial definitions of 'day' and, as you mention, of 'hour', and even of 'second' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second#Other_current_definitio...), they also have unambiguous scientific definitions that can be pinned down by sufficiently precise reference; whereas 'month' simply does not.
EDIT: I should clarify that I'm not attempting by any of this to say that programming with times isn't hard—it absolutely is. I just think that a large part of it can be traced to confusion about what is not a unit (which, as observed by cies above (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9665366) and DannoHung below (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9665472), can include such seemingly innocuous concepts as 'day'), and that it might be profitable explicitly to state this unifying idea as one way to guide attempts to program successfully with time.
As long as we're posting wikpedia links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second
I wouldn't trust any time unit larger than seconds if I was concerned about my units staying consistent. Hopefully time-keeping bodies don't decide we need leap-millis at some point.
Which is only to say that this is a problem that can't be solved simply by discarding some concepts that you find problematic. There's a lot of shit about timekeeping that's problematic. I'd advise tossing all the problematic shit when trying to figure out some internal representation for the underlying time that more or less always makes sense and then building out more human-usable representations with the uglyness on top of it.
I wouldn't trust any time unit larger than seconds if I was concerned about my units staying consistent. Hopefully time-keeping bodies don't decide we need leap-millis at some point.
Which is only to say that this is a problem that can't be solved simply by discarding some concepts that you find problematic. There's a lot of shit about timekeeping that's problematic. I'd advise tossing all the problematic shit when trying to figure out some internal representation for the underlying time that more or less always makes sense and then building out more human-usable representations with the uglyness on top of it.
> Which is only to say that this is a problem that can't be solved simply by discarding some concepts that you find problematic.
> I'd advise tossing all the problematic shit when trying to figure out some internal representation for the underlying time that more or less always makes sense and then building out more human-usable representations with the uglyness on top of it.
I don't mean to be snarky, but these two sentences seem contradictory—you say that the problem can't be solved by discarding problematic concepts, then advise to discard problematic concepts. Are you making the point that, even if internally we work with an un-problematic representation of time (if such a thing exists!), at some point we have to convert to and fro? Certainly I agree with that. Though I seem to have said it badly, that's really what I meant to say above: trying to work directly with months (and, perhaps less dramatically, with days), which are not units of time, allows the problematic real-world notion of time to contaminate what should be the clean internal representation of it.
> I'd advise tossing all the problematic shit when trying to figure out some internal representation for the underlying time that more or less always makes sense and then building out more human-usable representations with the uglyness on top of it.
I don't mean to be snarky, but these two sentences seem contradictory—you say that the problem can't be solved by discarding problematic concepts, then advise to discard problematic concepts. Are you making the point that, even if internally we work with an un-problematic representation of time (if such a thing exists!), at some point we have to convert to and fro? Certainly I agree with that. Though I seem to have said it badly, that's really what I meant to say above: trying to work directly with months (and, perhaps less dramatically, with days), which are not units of time, allows the problematic real-world notion of time to contaminate what should be the clean internal representation of it.
I guess? I'm saying that you can't realistically avoid working with the problematic units. Like, if you want to have a monthly payment system, at some point, you have to bake in the human concept of months into your system, warts and all.
When my cell plan was with T-mobile, I was on a pre-paid plan. My bill was due once a month, so I set up monthly automatic billing. Well, the system that enabled or disabled my service depending on if I had paid considered that to be "every 30 days". The system that handled the automatic payments considered that to be the same day every month (IIRC, it charged my card on the 18th of every month; when I set it up my bill was due on the 20th). A couple of 31-day months later, and I lose service for a day because the automatic payments didn't keep up with the bill being due.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Or more accurately, "Doing math that deals with different units of time will inevitably lead to unexpected results."
If you gather 6 different company executives and business requirement authors and ask them all to explain what it means to be "one month and 5 days later" than a given date, I guarantee you will get at least 3 or 4 different answers. No matter WHAT your code implements, it will be unexpected to some users.
As a developer, when I encounter a requirement like this one I feel it is my duty to push back on the requirement. I won't ACCEPT a requirement like "the grace period is a month and five days", and will instead (try to) force those writing the requirements to specify something clear like "the grace period is 35 days" or "the grace period is until 5 days after the same same date in the following month" (still somewhat misleading).
I have been working in software development within big business (banks, mostly) for quite some time now, and I frequently observe that developers -- probably because of the nature of their job -- tend to be good at thinking of something clearly and precisely, while those writing requirements tend to be fuzzy on the specifics but better able to understand the overall picture. Working at the interface between the two, my job is often to get each side to step up to the level of the other.
If you gather 6 different company executives and business requirement authors and ask them all to explain what it means to be "one month and 5 days later" than a given date, I guarantee you will get at least 3 or 4 different answers. No matter WHAT your code implements, it will be unexpected to some users.
As a developer, when I encounter a requirement like this one I feel it is my duty to push back on the requirement. I won't ACCEPT a requirement like "the grace period is a month and five days", and will instead (try to) force those writing the requirements to specify something clear like "the grace period is 35 days" or "the grace period is until 5 days after the same same date in the following month" (still somewhat misleading).
I have been working in software development within big business (banks, mostly) for quite some time now, and I frequently observe that developers -- probably because of the nature of their job -- tend to be good at thinking of something clearly and precisely, while those writing requirements tend to be fuzzy on the specifics but better able to understand the overall picture. Working at the interface between the two, my job is often to get each side to step up to the level of the other.
The same approach is in legal issues. Words "a month and a five days" shouldn't ever get past a lawyer, you'd get "35 calendar days" or more likely something like "25 business days as defined by XXX; if the notice is submitted past 18:00 then it's treated as if submitted on the next business day"
> What is really happening here is that a, b and c may themselves have different values depending on the operation - as adding a month here isn't a fixed number of days as month lengths differ.
spot on; very much a human mistake, a false assumption of how things work.
spot on; very much a human mistake, a false assumption of how things work.
> The article states it perfectly at the end though: "When doing math that deals with time, specifically different units of time, it can lead to unexpected results if you are not careful with the ordering". I think this can generally be extended to "when doing any math that deals with time, it can lead to unexpected results if you are not careful with everything"!
Another idea: don't dress up things that don't have anything to do with conventional math as conventional math. Using operands who's value depends on the value of the expression evaluation up to this point (I'm guessing left to right) is an aberration.
Another idea: don't dress up things that don't have anything to do with conventional math as conventional math. Using operands who's value depends on the value of the expression evaluation up to this point (I'm guessing left to right) is an aberration.
I was thinking quaternions when I saw the title.
This was a bit misleading. It's about date handling, which is a complex scenario well outside 1 + 1.
I was directly thinking dates when I saw the headline :-)
I too have had my share of problems with date handling. One year is not always 52 weeks, A month is never 30 days, most days have 24 hours (but not all of them) and so on...
Not to mention the famous D/M/Y, M/D/Y, Y-M-D ordering problem...
I too have had my share of problems with date handling. One year is not always 52 weeks, A month is never 30 days, most days have 24 hours (but not all of them) and so on...
Not to mention the famous D/M/Y, M/D/Y, Y-M-D ordering problem...
Me to I recall fixing a bug with a major uk company BACS transfer tape where the accounts receivable system was instant that you could have more than 365 days in a year.
Which meant that we where unable to collect any Direct debits for 3/4 of year!
Which meant that we where unable to collect any Direct debits for 3/4 of year!
I did not intend to mislead; i was thinking more about objects and ruby than mathmatics with the title
I guess "misleading operator overloading" would be too boring, huh.
Maybe worth mentioning: this was a bug that existed for ~2 years before I started on the project. It's easy for this kinda subtlety to slip past review and debugging.
That's interesting because if I understand the bug correctly, it should have failed as soon as you performed the test less than 5 days before the end of the current month. (Except in December and July for which the next month has the same number of days in it.).
if i recall, it was a bug that would come and go from our tests depending on when you ran them. Sometimes the math worked out, other times it was off. We knew the code worked, but couldn't figure out why the specs kept failing for it randomly.
eek. Time tests should be using something like https://github.com/travisjeffery/timecop for repeatability. If you do mean to allow random starting values like that, you should look into property-based testing http://www.troikatech.com/blog/2014/04/02/property-based-tes... - test hundreds of possible values at a time, instead of just the one time you ran the tests at.
I once worked for a failed startup, where the CEO insisted that we needed to write code to deal with billing people on arbitrary days of the month. I really wanted to do it on just the first of the month unconditionally, because I didn't think this was a good use of our time [1], but I was overridden.
I had a Perl library that was much like the Ruby one, where it could add a month. Having by then caught the unit testing bug, I wrote my billing code, with just a couple lines as the payload, then wrote myself a unit test that simulated a customer joining us on any of the possible 731 days they could do so (365 days in a non-leap year, 366 in a leap year), then ran through two years of billing, validating that we billed them on a day as close as possible to the correct day (i.e., Feb 28th if you were on a 30 cycle), never missing a bill or double-billing.
Sounds simple, right?
In my nearly 20 years of coding, this is the single most frustrating bit of code I have ever tried to write and debug. Just absolutely unbelievable. Billing code that worked perfectly, except on months with 30 days joined in a leap year. Billing code that worked perfectly, except if you joined on a 31-day month that was followed by another 31-day month (which is July, but the bug was essentially caused by that problem). And no matter how I beat the code, no matter how I fixed one bug, some other blasted corner case popped out.
Even now as I write this, I say to myself "surely this isn't that hard of a problem"... but it was. It really should have worked, but it didn't.
Calendars are evil.
And, what prompted me to reply, it would have been really easy for any version of this code to ship and not be noticed for a long, long time, if I hadn't written the exhaustive test cases I did. There was code that literally worked in 99.5% of the cases, and would only have broken a couple of times a year, and probably would have been written off as flukes or mysteries.
Should you ever find yourself in a similar situation, I strongly recommend the exhaustive testing approach. You will be stunned what crap you find in your seemingly-simple code for handling dates. This also really solidified my view on the utility of automated/unit testing. You simply can not manually test a 731-element matrix, and I was getting an incredibly rich array of varying failures across that matrix, in billing code, which is very important code.
[1]: This is many years ago, before there were so many great billing services off the shelf available, and we still had a significant challenge to be able to take payments at all. And lest I unhumbly make myself sound wiser than I was/am, I learned a lot about what code is and isn't worth writing at that startup... the hard way. Mercifully I don't feel my gross errors really contributed to the failure in the end... the startup died of one-more-feature-before-we-can-release-itis: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9640335
I had a Perl library that was much like the Ruby one, where it could add a month. Having by then caught the unit testing bug, I wrote my billing code, with just a couple lines as the payload, then wrote myself a unit test that simulated a customer joining us on any of the possible 731 days they could do so (365 days in a non-leap year, 366 in a leap year), then ran through two years of billing, validating that we billed them on a day as close as possible to the correct day (i.e., Feb 28th if you were on a 30 cycle), never missing a bill or double-billing.
Sounds simple, right?
In my nearly 20 years of coding, this is the single most frustrating bit of code I have ever tried to write and debug. Just absolutely unbelievable. Billing code that worked perfectly, except on months with 30 days joined in a leap year. Billing code that worked perfectly, except if you joined on a 31-day month that was followed by another 31-day month (which is July, but the bug was essentially caused by that problem). And no matter how I beat the code, no matter how I fixed one bug, some other blasted corner case popped out.
Even now as I write this, I say to myself "surely this isn't that hard of a problem"... but it was. It really should have worked, but it didn't.
Calendars are evil.
And, what prompted me to reply, it would have been really easy for any version of this code to ship and not be noticed for a long, long time, if I hadn't written the exhaustive test cases I did. There was code that literally worked in 99.5% of the cases, and would only have broken a couple of times a year, and probably would have been written off as flukes or mysteries.
Should you ever find yourself in a similar situation, I strongly recommend the exhaustive testing approach. You will be stunned what crap you find in your seemingly-simple code for handling dates. This also really solidified my view on the utility of automated/unit testing. You simply can not manually test a 731-element matrix, and I was getting an incredibly rich array of varying failures across that matrix, in billing code, which is very important code.
[1]: This is many years ago, before there were so many great billing services off the shelf available, and we still had a significant challenge to be able to take payments at all. And lest I unhumbly make myself sound wiser than I was/am, I learned a lot about what code is and isn't worth writing at that startup... the hard way. Mercifully I don't feel my gross errors really contributed to the failure in the end... the startup died of one-more-feature-before-we-can-release-itis: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9640335
Thank you for this comment! that certainly sounds like a nightmare of edgecases. The first of the month certainly seems like the better way to go!
This was sorta like that - specs would fail some days, but not others. The code worked, but the tests failed seemingly randomly.
This was sorta like that - specs would fail some days, but not others. The code worked, but the tests failed seemingly randomly.
Date math, calendars and all that is lumped in there together: my most hated of programming tasks.
Second most hated: anything to do with maps.
Seems like every new client or job I take on, I'm fixing or building a calendar or map.
Second most hated: anything to do with maps.
Seems like every new client or job I take on, I'm fixing or building a calendar or map.
tl;dr
Time.now + 5.days + 1.month == Time.now + 1.month + 5.days
Isn't always true because months have different lengths
Time.now + 5.days + 1.month == Time.now + 1.month + 5.days
Isn't always true because months have different lengths
That expression wouldn't always be true even if months did have the same lengths. Two calls to the clock in the same expression are not guaranteed to return the same time.
In the article, that problem is papered over by using string equality. That makes the problem much less likely (because it only occurs at rollovers of seconds) but it will still happen. Tests like this one - has a subscription expired? - should use inequalities, since that's all that's needed and it won't contain heisenbugs like the above.
Edited to add - just to demonstrate:
In the article, that problem is papered over by using string equality. That makes the problem much less likely (because it only occurs at rollovers of seconds) but it will still happen. Tests like this one - has a subscription expired? - should use inequalities, since that's all that's needed and it won't contain heisenbugs like the above.
Edited to add - just to demonstrate:
irb(main):045:0> i=0; loop { i=i+1; raise "#{i}" unless Time.now.to_s == Time.now.to_s; }
RuntimeError: 61473Yeah I feel like this article took a really long time to say just this.
[deleted]
Was hoping for something more surprising. Dates and times are fertile ground.
Rephrased, this problem is that "unit quantity + container quantity yields different results when container quantity varies".
On Feb 26th:
IIRC, #month is a Rails-ism, not part of Ruby.
Rephrased, this problem is that "unit quantity + container quantity yields different results when container quantity varies".
On Feb 26th:
> Time.now + 1.month + 5.days => Mar 31st
> Time.now + 5.days + 1.month => Apr 3rd
IIRC, #month is a Rails-ism, not part of Ruby.
Definitely happens with natural language judgementalistically.
yes your point is? Date math is not the same as arithmetic
and arithmetic is not the same thing as sending + to different objects in ruby :)
It really depends on how you expect '+' to behave.
When seeing '+', I immediately think of a semigroup operation. I would expect it to be associative but not necessarily commutative.
When seeing '+', I immediately think of a semigroup operation. I would expect it to be associative but not necessarily commutative.
Is it even associative? I don't use Ruby, but it seems like this might not even be defined:
5.days + 1.month> 5.days + 1.month
=> 1 month and 5 days
Well, right... but "1 month and 5 days" isn't particularly well-defined on its own, unless you have some starting date that you're measuring from.
Agreed, but technically it is defined.
I had a physics teacher that used to tell us:
vache + mouton = la honte
cow + sheep = shame
So if I sign up in February I get 28 days to enjoy the service; if I sign up in March I get 31? That seems like the fundamental problem here.
It all stems from that `+` in Ruby is not something mathematical. It is merely a method that needs to be defined on the expression that it follows:
If you are looking for a language basis itself more on "laws" then on "message passing", I found this is Haskell.
In Haskell `+` is a function that need to be implemented for all types in the `Num` type-class. `+` can only add two `Num`s of the same type (and evaluates to a value of that specific type), thus explicit conversion is needed. See the docs here:
http://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.8.0.0/docs/Prelude...
Time.now.+(1.month).+(5.days)
Time.now.send(:"+", 1.month).send(:"+", 5.days)
If you are looking for a language basis itself more on "laws" then on "message passing", I found this is Haskell.
In Haskell `+` is a function that need to be implemented for all types in the `Num` type-class. `+` can only add two `Num`s of the same type (and evaluates to a value of that specific type), thus explicit conversion is needed. See the docs here:
http://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.8.0.0/docs/Prelude...
A related one which I found is A + B - B != A
In pretty much the same case, where A==some time and B == 1 month
This came up in calculations for monthly subscriptions, trying to reach back in time to work out pro-rata charges for changing subscription details part way through a month.
In pretty much the same case, where A==some time and B == 1 month
This came up in calculations for monthly subscriptions, trying to reach back in time to work out pro-rata charges for changing subscription details part way through a month.
Hah, you think normal date math is bad, try dealing with the various calendars used in finance. US 30/360, Euro 30/360, Actual/365, Actual/360, etc, etc. That stuff will make you tear your hair out.