## Bug #3434

### Specs for coercion?

Status: | Assigned | ||
---|---|---|---|

Priority: | Normal | ||

Assignee: | Marc-Andre Lafortune | ||

Category: | core | ||

Target version: | next minor | ||

ruby -v: | Backport: |

**Description**

=begin

What are the official specs of coercion for mathematical classes?

I will take Matrix as an example, but my questions are meant to be for the general case.

My understanding is that for a `obj.coerce(obj_2)`

should return `[compatible_2, compatible]`

such that `compatible2.send(some_operation, compatible)`

returns (if possible) a meaningful result.

Can we assume anything more about coercion? I'm asking because I find in test_matrix (@m1 being a Matrix):

def test*scalar*mul

s1 = @m1.coerce(1).first

assert*equal(Matrix1, (s1 * 1) * Matrix1)
assert*equal(Vector[2], s1 * Vector[2])

assert

*equal(Matrix2, s1 * Matrix2)*

o = Object.new

def o.coerce(x)

[1, 1]

end

assertequal(1, s1 * o)

o = Object.new

def o.coerce(x)

[1, 1]

end

assert

end

1) Should the first and last assert work? Are implementers of other mathematical classes mandated/encouraged to provide that level of compatibility? Are users of `coerce`

encouraged (or guaranteed success) when doing any other operation than `compatible2 * compatible`

or similar?

My feeling is that the only thing one should do with the results of coerce is to call an operation on the first element and pass the second element. Doing operations using only one of the two returned elements with another new object should yield undetermined results.

If this is the case, I feel the Matrix library would be best to assume that Scalar#* is called with a Matrix or Vector (remember that the Scalar is not meant to be used directly by anybody else than the Matrix lib), and these two assert would *not* work.

2) The second assert is clearly implementation dependant. In the current implementation, both Vector and Matrix use Matrix::Scalar as a temporary class, but that could change.

3) I am assuming that compatible doesn't have to be equal?, eql? or == to obj nor of the same class, and the same is true for compatible*2 vs obj*2, right? Thus the third assert isn't a spec guaranteed for all implementations.

4) Finally, a somewhat trivial question: should `obj.coerce(obj_2)`

succeed if `obj`

and `obj_2`

are of the same class (and presumably return `[obj_2, obj]`

)? Clearly this is not very useful, but the specs should be made precise.

This is the case for Numeric and is explicit in the documentation but fails for Matrix:

Matrix.I(2).coerce(Matrix.I(2)) # => TypeError: Matrix can't be coerced into Matrix

Coercion should always work for the trivial case of two objects of the same class, right?

Thanks.

--

Marc-André

=end

### History

#### #3 Updated by Thomas Sawyer about 1 year ago

=begin

Regarding the coercion spec, I had need of coercion for Array the other day while implementing a set logic system. So I wondered if coercion can't be more general and not just isolated to Numerics. Is there a necessary reason coercion can't work in general for ((*operators*)) across ((*all classes*))?

=end

#### #4 Updated by Koichi Sasada about 1 year ago

**Description**updated (diff)

I'm not sure about this ticket.

Who can discuss about it?

#### #5 Updated by Koichi Sasada about 1 year ago

**Category**set to*core***Target version**changed from*2.0.0*to*next minor*

#### #6 Updated by Yui NARUSE about 1 year ago

**Tracker**changed from*misc*to*Bug*