Proposal: Use generics to add type safety support to is.Equal

Proposal: Use generics to add type safety support to is.Equal

[flowchartsman]

This won't work as-is. Go generics do not support parameterized methods, so the above will not compile. You could try to write a package global method with a generic signature like
func EqualGeneric[T any](a,b T) bool, but you would then have to call it using the package, which would mean abandoning the convention of is := is.New(), since this otherwise shadows the package namespace with the identifier. This gets you something like:

var (
	a int
	b uint8
)
isVal := is.New(t)
isVal.True(is.EqualGeneric(a,b))
// error: type uint8 of b does not match inferred type int for T 

And that error message is also not particularly clear, since it's primarily a type inference error regarding the generic function itself, which is confusing since there's no T in this code. It is more clear with an explicit type parameter to the function, but then you end up with something like:

var (
    a int
    b uint8
)
isVal := is.New(t)
isVal.True(is.EqualGeneric[int](a,b))
// output: cannot use b (variable of type uint8) as int value in argument to is.EqualGeneric[int]

Ref: https://go.dev/play/p/tKb-6wvHZbx

Given all that, I'm not sure using type parameters really gets us what we want here.

[breml]

@leafbebop in general, I like this proposal. I think, this could be a reasonable addition to the existing API.

For the name of this function, I would like to share the following proposals:

• EqualOf: if I remember correctly, the suffix Of has been used/proposed for usage in the stdlib, when a function/method with the same name (without generics) already exists.
• TypeSafeEqual or SafeEqual: might be easier to use in IDE with code completion, because already the first letter gives you the correct option

[walles]

... or just release v2.0.0 and make the existing Equal generic.

[matryer]

@flowchartsman What do you think?

[matryer]

what if we just added a method alongside the other? Could we tolerate is.EqualG[string](s1, s2)?

[flowchartsman]

what if we just added a method alongside the other? Could we tolerate is.EqualG[string](s1, s2)?

It still can't be a method, with or without type inference. You'd need to make it a global, type-parameterized function in the is package, breaking the naming convention like I mentioned above, or make the I type itself generic, and instantiate a new one for every type you wanted to compare (which, would also mean never calling the I value is, and would also mean you couldn't re-use it, since they'd be different types after the short assignment).

[walles]

Related language proposal: golang/go#49085

[flowchartsman]

Related language proposal: golang/go#49085

Yah, I wouldn't hold my breath for that one, much as I would love it, since it seems to be relatively difficult to solve in a go-y way.

At this time, AFAICT, the only way to do this in a way that looks how the package is used now is to go all-in on global state, and have package-level parameterized functions in place of methods on instances of the I type, but this is a very radical change to make just to get the compiler to tell you that one thing is an int and another is a uint8.

[breml]

At this time, AFAICT, the only way to do this in a way that looks how the package is used now is to go all-in on global state, and have package-level parameterized functions in place of methods on instances of the I type, but this is a very radical change to make just to get the compiler to tell you that one thing is an int and another is a uint8.

Even with all the sympathy I have with the original idea of this proposal, I feel that changing the API of the is package in such a dramatic way is not reasonable. This would justify the creation of a completely separate package with its own API style.

[flowchartsman]

Given that this proposal can't work as-is (no generic methods), and given that fully embracing generics would be a big enough change to merit an entirely new version (if not a new module), I think we're gonna have to close this issue, but thanks for the submission, and stay tuned!