SE-0494: Add `isIdentical(to:)` Methods for Quick Comparisons to Concrete Types

[vanvoorden (Rick van Voorden)]

@awwright

@bbrk24

No, because hashing a string or an array requires you to traverse its entire contents, which is specifically what this check is designed to avoid

Nonetheless, Hashable is still more performant than Equals in many situations. Otherwise why would it exist? The proposal should note Hashable as a "considered alternative".

I have to say… I'm not sure I understand the feedback suggesting Hashable as an alternative to what's being proposed.

What might help here is to please reference the concrete examples presented in the "Motivation" and "Proposed Solution" of the proposal. How would knowing that this Array adopts Hashable help improve performance of the real-world examples we presented in the proposal?