Hi Stef Collation is the accurate and correct term If I google: Unicode comparison algorithm for example, the first hit is: UTS #10: Unicode Collation Algorithm - Unicode.org http://unicode.org/reports/tr10/
collationner (collate) has a second meaning, even in French: https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/collationner Interestingly, the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collation isn't even translated in French... Maybe i's not popular enough in French (un mot savant)... I'm not good enough in English to tell if it has same "snob" connotation Nicolas 2017-11-05 17:49 GMT+01:00 Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.s...@gmail.com>: > Hi nicolas > > where it is defined that collation is something returning -1, 0, 1? > I'm always thinking to newcomers that have to learn yet another > concept and here for nothing. > Because SortFunction with a nice comment saying that it should return > -1, 0, 1 looks simpler that CollatorFunction which tells me nothing, > except that may be this is about drinking (for french). > > > Stef > > On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Nicolas Cellier > <nicolas.cellier.aka.n...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 2017-11-05 10:16 GMT+01:00 Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com>: > >> > >> > >> > >> > On 5 Nov 2017, at 06:00, Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.s...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > Hi guys > >> > > >> > Why do we rename class Sort to introduce terms that have unknown, > >> > unclear, undocumented meaning? > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> > > >> > To me PluggableSortFunction is MUCH better than CollatorBlockFunction. > >> > >> but pluggable is also bad, IMO. > >> also I see there is some incoherence in the names: > > > > > > agree with Esteban, Pluggable pouah! > > > >> > >> ChainedSortFunction -> this is kind of ok, but I think a > >> “ComposedSortFunction” is better. > > > > > > But there can be several kind of composition... > > For example wrapped as illustrated with UnderfinedSorter refactoring > that I > > proposed. > > Personnally I like Chained because it explicitely tells the kind of > > composition > > > >> SortByPropertyFunction -> shouldn’t be “PropertySortFunction” ? > (coherent > >> with the previous one) > > > > > > +1 for PropertySortFunction, or maybe just PropertySorter > > > >> CollatorSortFunction -> this is like a “BlockSortFunction” or > >> “ValuableSortFunction” ? > > > > > > CollatorBlockFunction is only a proxy to the block so as it answers to > > #threeWayCompare:with: protocol rather than value:value: > > It's a Block view as a CollatorFunction. > > The name first surprised me negatively, but after reflexion it tells > what it > > is. > > > > 1) Collator indicates that the block (valuable) will return -1, 0 or +1 > > > > 2) It's not necessarily a block, it could be anything understanding > > value:value: > > But, the valuable should return -1,0,+1, so apart <=> > (threeWayCompareTo:) > > it ain't gonna be anything but a block in practice. > > For <=> we would want a DefaultSortFunction and would not use a > > CollatorBlockFunction. > > > > 3) Function refers to SortFunction. > > For this, I'm neutral, whether you call it Sorter or SortFunction I don't > > care. > > SortFunction kind of implies these are stateless, so it's a rather good > and > > accurate name. > > Maybe a Sorter could be more confusing, because a Sorter could be > thought as > > having the sorted collection as instance variable (statefull). > > > > Nicolas > > > >> > >> Esteban > >> > >> > > >> > Stef > >> > > >> > >> > > > >
