Indeed OC, your version is shorter and easier to read (in my eyes too).
Whether it is more performant depends on whether the respective
compareTo method isn't too slow compared to the equals method.
On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 2:22 AM o...@ocs.cz <o...@ocs.cz> wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> side question, completely irrelevant to the original problem, just occurred
> to me when I read this...
>
> On 20. 5. 2024, at 17:02, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
> println ([[x:1, y:100], [x:2, y:1], [x: 2, y:500]].sort{ a, b -> a.x == b.x
> ? a.y <=> b.y : a.x <=> b.x }) // works
>
>
> Wouldn't sort { a,b -> a.x<=>b.x ?: a.y<=>b.y } be both more efficient and
> better readable and intention-revealing? Or do I overlook some reason why it
> would be a bad idea?
>
> Thanks,
> OC
>
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 12:52 AM Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> If you have only two dimensions, you'll get away with your solution
> for small integer coordinate values. Here is a counter example with
> integers:
>
> println ([[x: 1, y: 69273666], [x: 69273666, y: 1]].sort{[it.x,
> it.y]}) // broken
> println ([[x: 1, y: 69273666], [x: 69273666, y: 1]].sort{ a, b ->
> a.x == b.x ? a.y <=> b.y : a.x <=> b.x }) // works
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 12:25 AM M.v.Gulik <mvgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 20 May 2024 at 15:40, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> What sort result are you trying to achieve? There should be no need to
> perform any recursion.
>
>
>
> Main target was reordering some set of randomly ordered x,y coordinates into
> (for example*) a x,y(left to right, top to bottom) order (*:where any of the
> actual sort directions could be easily flipped).
>
> So far "*.sort{[it.y, it.x]}" seems the best and easiest way to do this
> (despite its Float/Double caveat).
>
>
