It could be the other way around. Maybe `Array.prototype.sort` and `Array.prototype.fastSort`. The former is required to be stable, but the latter wouldn't.
A polyfill could check if `A.p.sort` is stable, replacing if necessary, and alias the old one to `A.p.fastSort` if it doesn't exist. On Thu, Mar 17, 2016, 19:42 Dean Landolt <d...@deanlandolt.com> wrote: > Why should you have to opt into to stable sort? Why not the other way > around? `Array.prototype.fastestSort` or some such -- or better yet, spec a > symbol for it that falls back to `Array.prototype.sort` for implementations > that don't expose a faster unstable variety. > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:35 PM, Isiah Meadows <isiahmead...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> How about an `Array.prototype.stableSort(comparator?)` method? Several >> languages already have something like this, anyways. >> >> (Speaking of bugs related to unstable sorts, my blog has that problem as >> well - unstable sort resulting in incorrect order.) >> >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016, 18:50 Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Vic99999 <vic99...@yandex.ru> wrote: >>> >> What about the Timsort? >>> > >>> > I cannot believe it will be faster on random int array. And TimSort is >>> base on MergeSort and, seems, for it's worst cases it cannot be better than >>> MergeSort. >>> > I have tried https://github.com/mziccard/node-timsort/ with my old >>> node.js - 0.10.4 and Chrome 49 (win32) - and I see that random int array >>> case is much slower that native in Chrome, and in node.js too if I replace >>> "native" with a function from >>> https://github.com/v8/v8/blob/master/src/js/array.js . >>> > >>> > Perhaps, implementers will want to leave the behaviour of >>> `array.sort(comparefn)` as it was for backward compatiblity. >>> >>> There's no back-compat impact for switching to a stable sort; since >>> you can't depend on the ordering of an unstable sort in the first >>> place, changing that order (to stable) is fine. (Most likely it'll >>> *fix* pages that are currently sometimes broken in small ways because >>> they assume stability.) It's just potentially a minor speed drop. >>> >>> ~TJ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> es-discuss mailing list >>> es-discuss@mozilla.org >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> es-discuss@mozilla.org >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
