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

[vanvoorden (Rick van Voorden)]

@Stan_Smida

What I’m trying to say is that I feel like self-explanatory isIdentical(to:) is being hijacked for different meaning.

I don't completely follow this feedback. You are saying that isIdentical(to:) is self-explanatory? Why does this imply that you are asking to change the name if it is already self-explanatory?

@Stan_Smida

Perhaps mustBeEqual(to:)?

This specific name was discussed in a pitch thread and we decided no for that:

@lorentey

@vanvoorden

Were there any offline discussions about a potential mustBeEqual function instead?

Perhaps I've missed some earlier posts on this topic, but this is the first time I see mention of a mustBeEqual function; for what it's worth, I have a difficult time figuring out what it would do, based on just its name. To me, it reads like it states a requirement, which gives me the impression it might be for doing nonstandard precondition checks.

As discussed in my previous comment we are not enforcing that all isIdentical(to:) methods must only be on concrete types that adopt Equatable. We do not want to put "equal" in the name of this API.

We have documented years of prior art in Standard Library and across Swift libraries that show isIdentical(to:) is already being used for the purpose we are proposing here for new types. This is the best name and the right name and I have not seen any compelling reason to change my opinion about that.