Bill Baxter wrote:
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:43 PM, Jarrett Billingsley
<jarrett.billings...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:59 AM, bearophile <bearophileh...@lycos.com> wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley:
I suppose you mean for normal arrays. How about reverse as well?
I'd like to see better and faster "reverse" and "sort", but I think they are
useful. Why do you want to see them removed? I think built-in types may enjoy more methods, not
less.
So they can be replaced with library methods. The built-in sort
doesn't even allow you to sort on a predicate. Even if we extend the
built-in sort to support this, it'll never be as flexible as some
people want it. If a sort function can perform just as well or better
than the built-in sort while being more flexible, what's the point of
having the built-in sort?
One good thing about the built-in .sort and .reverse functions is that
you can be sure they'll work as CTFE.
A library sort function isn't so likely to.
--bb
What prevents a sort() function from a standard library with default
parameters from being CTFE-ed?
A .sort property built into the language is convenient, but not
necessary I think.
