On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: > "sortInPlace" should not be made any slower only for the sake of using a > _generally_ correct implementation of "Comparator". The implementation in > "sortInPlace" is quite correct for the task at hand.
I buy that -- but my point here was just that this other Comparator wasn't *incorrect*, which seemed to be your point. >> I thought it went without saying that the use case is external callers. >> The >> single potential internal usage it was just a potential bonus. Is it >> beyond >> CM's scope to include a little utility class? meh, I hadn't thought so but >> I can see that point of view, and that alone is good enough for me. It's >> just bike-shedding beyond this point. > > > Well, you don't answer to my questions about usage; how am I supposed to > answer > yours about being, or not, in the scope? (Isn't it in your quote? a) maybe some external caller wants it and b) maybe there is a use case in one place in the code.) But I can also buy the argument that it's not in scope. The issue is closed, thank you. To be honest I'm sorry I opened this issue, as it wasn't worth this much time or annoyance. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
