Tom Switzer <thomas.swit...@gmail.com> added the comment:
If the equal min y-coords are handled, I think it'd be quicker too. As Guido
noted, O(n) function calls is better then O(n log n) =] Though the general
case is still unhandled. And, though it doesn't help my case, the Graham
Scan can also be performed on points sorted lexicographically too, by
constructing the upper & lower hull separately, hehe.
Now, I understand cmp on the whole was removed from the language. Using
__lt__, __eq__, etc. really is more natural. However, having an explicit cmp
function for sorting makes sense to me. At the very least, it is more
obvious and natural for some problems - though I respect that using a key
func. is often faster. In some rare (though "rare" is very subjective) cases
it is required; packing a cmp function into __cmp__ in a wrapper object is
really just a hard-to-read cmp function and highlights the need for cmp. I
would actually love to see it added for min/max too actually, since I find I
often use a simple reduce function in place of a min(lst, cmp=...).
Enforcing proper comparisons (<, >, ==, etc) makes sense, but would having
the cmp function live, so to speak, in sorting really be that bad? Just
inform the user in the docs that key is preferred and often faster.
----------
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file15473/unnamed
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1771>
_______________________________________
If the equal min y-coords are handled, I think it'd be quicker too. As
Guido noted, O(n) function calls is better then O(n log n) =] Though the
general case is still unhandled. And, though it doesn't help my case, the
Graham Scan can also be performed on points sorted lexicographically too, by
constructing the upper & lower hull separately, hehe.<br>
<br>Now, I understand cmp on the whole was removed from the language. Using
__lt__, __eq__, etc. really is more natural. However, having an explicit cmp
function for sorting makes sense to me. At the very least, it is more obvious
and natural for some problems - though I respect that using a key func. is
often faster. In some rare (though "rare" is very subjective) cases
it is required; packing a cmp function into __cmp__ in a wrapper object is
really just a hard-to-read cmp function and highlights the need for cmp. I
would actually love to see it added for min/max too actually, since I find I
often use a simple reduce function in place of a min(lst, cmp=...). Enforcing
proper comparisons (<, >, ==, etc) makes sense, but would having the cmp
function live, so to speak, in sorting really be that bad? Just inform the user
in the docs that key is preferred and often faster.<br>
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
