On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 13:24:45 +0100, Sean Owen wrote:
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 was thinking out loud (sorry!); IIRC I used the word "wonder".
[Actually, I never thought that your code was incorrect.]
Then I came to the conclusion that your proposed implementation would
only do unnecessary work in "sortInPlace".
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.
Quoting the next line in the CM goals statement:
---CUT---
Real-world application use cases determine development priority.
---CUT---
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.
If the regular contributors were thinking that way, no work would be
done.
There wouldn't be a project where people discuss just like we did.
Thanks for your contribution,
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
